LSAT 109 – Section 3 – Question 04

LSAT 109 - Section 3 - Question 04

December 2000

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:16

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT109 S3 Q04
+LR
Strengthen +Streng
Value Judgment +ValJudg
A
3%
160
B
2%
156
C
94%
167
D
1%
155
E
1%
158
130
140
150
 +Easier 148.18 +SubsectionMedium

Limited research indicates that therapeutic intervention before the onset of mental disorders can mitigate factors identified as major contributors to them. But a much more comprehensive research program is needed to verify these results and allow for the design of specific health care measures. Thus, in order to explore a potential means of cost-effectively helping people prone to mental disorders, we should increase funding for intervention research.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes more funding should be directed toward intervention research in order to explore a cost-effective way to help people predisposed to mental disorders. Why? Because more research is needed to confirm some existing research—which found that early intervention can mitigate risk factors for mental disorders—and to develop practices for care based on those results.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes the care practices developed will be cost-effective while addressing risk factors for mental disorders. She assumes more funding for intervention research will be directed towards the “comprehensive research program” described, that more funding is required for such a program, and that such a program is necessary to confirm the findings of the limited research.

A
Most minor mental disorders are more expensive to treat than other minor health problems.
This doesn’t affect the argument. The author implies a comparison between the cost of treating early risk factors for mental disorders and the cost of treating more-fully-developed mental disorders, not between minor mental disorders and other, unrelated health problems.
B
Prevention research can be coordinated by drawing together geneticists, neurologists, and behavioral scientists.
This explains how the research program might be organized, not why it’s necessary to confirm the results of the existing research. It’s possible the previous research also included input from geneticists, neurologists, and behavioral scientists.
C
Reducing known risk factors for mental disorders is relatively inexpensive compared to the long-term treatment required.
This makes concrete the author’s main assumption, that treating risk factors early is more cost-effective than treating full-blown disorders later. It justifies her advocacy for funding in order to develop those treatments.
D
Current funding for intervention research is now higher than it has ever been before.
This compares past funding with present funding, while the author compares present funding with future funding. She argues funding should increase to support the program described—she makes no claim about the present level of research funding relative to past levels.
E
Once a mental disorder disappears, there is a fair chance that it will recur, given that complete cures are rare.
This doesn’t affect the argument. There’s no indication that current care practices or the ones to be developed will cause mental disorders to disappear—only that they might help prevent those disorders from developing.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 109 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply