LSAT 114 – Section 2 – Question 14

LSAT 114 - Section 2 - Question 14

October 2002

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

Target time: 1:14

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
PT114 S2 Q14
+LR
+Exp
Main conclusion or main point +MC
Value Judgment +ValJudg
A
3%
162
B
2%
159
C
90%
166
D
1%
153
E
4%
157
130
141
152
 +Easier 145.502 +SubsectionMedium

Ethicist: Both ASA and TPA are clot-dissolving agents. Recent studies show that the more expensive agent, TPA, would save at most two more lives than would ASA out of every 50 cardiac patients to whom they are postoperatively administered. However, since the relatives of the patients who die simply because they were given the less expensive medicine would be particularly grieved, the financial saving involved in using ASA over TPA must also be weighed against such considerations.

Summarize Argument
The ethicist believes that, in the choice between two medicines, there are more considerations at play than just the cost vs. the effectiveness of each medicine. In support, we are told that letting a patient die just because the less expensive medicine was used would cause more grief to that patient’s family members. This is one example of the additional considerations that, according to the ethicist, should inform the choice of medicine.

Identify Conclusion
The ethicist’s conclusion is that the decision of which medicine to use is not simply about cost vs. lives saved; it “must also be weighed against such considerations” as the grief experienced by patients’ families.

A
ASA should never be given to postoperative cardiac patients in place of TPA.
This is not stated in the argument. The ethicist never makes an absolute claim about which medicine should be used over the other, the argument is just about what factors warrant consideration.
B
TPA is a slightly more effective clot-dissolving agent than ASA.
Like (D), this can be inferred from the facts stated, but it’s context for the argument rather than being part of the argument itself. The ethicist’s focus is on including considerations beyond cost vs. effectiveness, and this claim isn’t part of that.
C
The extra expense of TPA cannot be weighed simply against the few additional lives saved.
This accurately captures the main conclusion. The ethicist says we need to weigh the cost of this type of medicine against more factors than just effectiveness, and the example of grief is used to support that.
D
ASA is a less expensive clot-dissolving agent than TPA.
Like (B), this is part of the argument’s context, not part of the argument. The argument is about considering more factors than just cost vs. effectiveness, the discussion of cost just sets the stage for that conversation.
E
Relatives of a patient who has died grieve more if the patient received ASA rather than TPA.
This statement in the argument isn’t offered any support, it’s just stated as a fact. Furthermore, it’s used as an example to support the conclusion about taking more factors into consideration when deciding on a medicine. That makes this a premise, not the conclusion.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 114 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply