As discussed in this lesson, the correct answer is C (this is a common issue with misinterpreting medical error data), but the analysis of answer choice E is wrong, as it misunderstands both what 'risk' means in this context, and what is likely to produce iatrogenic harm is. First, what is a risk? Risk means there is a chance of a harmful event. It is absolutely true that developing disease (ANY disease) impacts the chance of iatrogenic harm. This point is relevant, as questions of risk certainly occur in more than just this practice test question. Any change in the likelihood of a harmful event is a change in the risk. Don't assume a small change won't change that risk. 2. is fairly domain specific, but while we're here, I might as well explain it. Iatrogenic disease does not require invasive or particularly dangerous intervention. The common cold absolutely increases the risk of iatrogenic harm. If you have a cold, you're more likely to (1) take cold medicine, which can cause iatrogenic harm, or (2) go to the doctor, which can cause iatrogenic harm (e.g., from catching a secondary infection because you're at a place where there are a lot of sick people, from getting medicine..., etc, etc, etc). In fact, problems like the common cold and back pain are among the largest overall contributors to iatrogenic disease, as they are responsible for so many medical interventions. Ping, thankfully, grants that even if E is true, it doesn't impact the argument, but I think it's important to recognize that assumptions outside one's domain can often be wrong (e.g., considering that iatrogenic disease from the common cold is nuts, when in fact it's one of the most common sources of iatrogenic disease).
I thought C is a little too crual and direct before... I should realize that, not all right answer is also right in the real world, now we're in the lawgic world
i don't understand how difficulty is rated because this was like the easiest question for me, meanwhile the last one about media and the economy was crazyyyy
@soleluna883 In this example they say the same number of people die from iatrogenic disease.
ID can cause death
but death can also happen without ID.
Their argument is if prevented the number of deaths per year would decrease by half. Their conclusion is no longer considering only the deaths of ID they are applying it to all deaths in general. Maybe had they said "The number of ID deaths would decrease" but ID is not the only cause of deaths so they are failing to consider that even if you prevent ID, the amount of deaths caused by ID may decrease but doesn't mean the number of deaths as a whole will decrease.
Can someone explain how this abstracted version of AC C is still correct? I'm struggling to understand how it applies.
To have this argument and its underlying math work, it would have to be death -> iatrogenic disease. ID is necessary for death.
However, since we know it's flawed and doesn't work (and iatrogenic disease -> death just seems to be wrong from common sense), that therefore discounts ID as a necessary condition for this argument?
these are soooo hit or miss for me. It either is extremely apparent or I can't see it at all. This one I got in 1 minute, the other I took 10 minutes and got wrong and BR I guessed and got it right. Does anyone have tips? :(
This was yet another very helpful question with its lessons to keep in mind for future flawed causal questions.
The argument is flawed because it simply assumes Iatrogenic diseases which is a sufficient cause to death to conclude on the basis that it is a necessary cause which is wrong.
And with the AC introducing the overlooked possibility that there are multiple alternative causes besides Iatrogenic disease the argument is weakened because we can't conclude that half of the deaths will decrease.
While in the next question it mistakes a single effect to be the only effect of a cause, this question conflates a single cause to be the only necessary cause and falls vulnerable to alternative causes, this instance being the sickness that lead patient to receive hospitalization and medical error in the first place.
I'm confused about what this means: "Again, recall that the conclusion is conditional. We’re already positing a hypothetical world where we’ve prevented all iatrogenic diseases."
Does this mean that since the conclusion is conditional, the wrong answer choices will include "prevention of all iatrogenic diseases"
@IsabellaP Hi! A conditional conclusion is when the conclusion contains a conditional relationship, often an "if" statement. In this case, the conclusion is : "Therefore, if medicine could find ways of preventing all iatrogenic disease, the number of deaths per year would decrease by half." When we have a conditional conclusion, the author is asking us to grant them the assumption that something is true. They are saying "Imagine we are in a world where X is true. In that world, we have conclusion Y." For this question, we imagine ourselves in a world where all iatrogenic disease is prevented. In that world, the number of deaths per year would decrease by half. However, we know from the question stem that the argument's reasoning is flawed and so our job is to figure out why the premises do NOT support the conclusion.
I'm not sure that I understand your question about wrong answer choices. The wrong answer choice definitely does not HAVE to include "prevention of all iatrogenic diseases" (consider answer choice E, for example). However, if an answer choice were to say "The reasoning in the argument is flawed because it fails to consider that the prevention of all iatrogenic diseases may not be possible", then yes, it would be incorrect because of the conditional nature of the conclusion. We want to know why the conclusion is flawed within the context of a hypothetical world where all iatrogenic diseases are prevented. Claiming that this hypothetical world cannot exist fails to address the question stem.
@IsabellaP Prevention doesn't necessarily have to be in the wrong answers, as this is a Flaw question; therefore, we're attacking the argument as a whole instead of focusing on the argument's details. However, if this were a question type like MBT, we'd definitely want to make sure the AC included the condition of preventing all iatrogenic disease, as otherwise the hypothetical that the conclusion rests on wouldn't be activated. A sure sign of a wrong answer would be something that states something is certain without using the hypothetical situation, as we have no way of knowing what would happen if the sufficient condition for preventing all iatrogenic disease were not met.
Can someone help me understand why E is wrong? I like C and E as answer choice, but I don't understand why E is wrong. I understand we are dealing with an embedded conditional in the conclusion that states that we are in a world with no Iatrogenic dieases, but answer E is essentially saying in my eyes "as long as there is non-Iatrogenic dieseases, there is bound to be Iatrogenic dieases, therefore to get rid of Iatrogenic diesease, you would have to get rid of all diesease", which is not something we are dealing with. I understand that in a round-about way, answer E is essentially just denying hypothetical in the conclusion, and now that I see that C is right I concede it's the better answer, but still don't see how E is nessecarily wrong.
@jackghenriquez1 Take this with a grain of salt because I don't really know if this is the correct way of thinking lol -
I initially was between C and E and ended up picking E (ugh). Before I listened to the explanation I was trying to figure out why it was wrong on my own and something I realized was the phrasing "noniatrogenic disease" (AC) vs. all other causes (Stimulus). The stim says all other causes and I think that I was wrong to initially assume that "all other causes combined" also meant noniatrogenic diseases. Meaning E wasn't descriptively accurate :)
i am really struggling with these questions haven't gotten any right. And every choice I make is totally tricking me as I feel very confident. C didnt seem right to me because its SO VAGUE. It seems like such a weak answer choice. Does anyone have any tips? Or any other resources that could help me understand?
Do NOT map it out and re-read twice if needed (understand it)
Before looking at the answer choices, think about your own "Flaw" that you can come up with from the stimuli (Does some other factor cause the issues, if the disease is prevented what is not author failing to consider? What if people start dying of another cause?)
take your time & process all the choices and follow your intuition
@lzagrodnik I totally agree w/ you about this Q. I feel like the reasoning is so sound for the flaw itself, but that AC is worded in a way that is really different. Maybe that’s the point, but very confusing.
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
111 comments
Finally a win
As discussed in this lesson, the correct answer is C (this is a common issue with misinterpreting medical error data), but the analysis of answer choice E is wrong, as it misunderstands both what 'risk' means in this context, and what is likely to produce iatrogenic harm is. First, what is a risk? Risk means there is a chance of a harmful event. It is absolutely true that developing disease (ANY disease) impacts the chance of iatrogenic harm. This point is relevant, as questions of risk certainly occur in more than just this practice test question. Any change in the likelihood of a harmful event is a change in the risk. Don't assume a small change won't change that risk. 2. is fairly domain specific, but while we're here, I might as well explain it. Iatrogenic disease does not require invasive or particularly dangerous intervention. The common cold absolutely increases the risk of iatrogenic harm. If you have a cold, you're more likely to (1) take cold medicine, which can cause iatrogenic harm, or (2) go to the doctor, which can cause iatrogenic harm (e.g., from catching a secondary infection because you're at a place where there are a lot of sick people, from getting medicine..., etc, etc, etc). In fact, problems like the common cold and back pain are among the largest overall contributors to iatrogenic disease, as they are responsible for so many medical interventions. Ping, thankfully, grants that even if E is true, it doesn't impact the argument, but I think it's important to recognize that assumptions outside one's domain can often be wrong (e.g., considering that iatrogenic disease from the common cold is nuts, when in fact it's one of the most common sources of iatrogenic disease).
@JessicaVerdugoLopez me
:(
Underlining the sentences really helped.
I thought C is a little too crual and direct before... I should realize that, not all right answer is also right in the real world, now we're in the lawgic world
WHAT
I was about to pick E but they never mentioned noniatrogenic
I was feeling good about the other question types (after paying meticulous attention lol), I figured flaw would be easy for me..... WRONG hehe
i don't understand how difficulty is rated because this was like the easiest question for me, meanwhile the last one about media and the economy was crazyyyy
@soleluna883 In this example they say the same number of people die from iatrogenic disease.
ID can cause death
but death can also happen without ID.
Their argument is if prevented the number of deaths per year would decrease by half. Their conclusion is no longer considering only the deaths of ID they are applying it to all deaths in general. Maybe had they said "The number of ID deaths would decrease" but ID is not the only cause of deaths so they are failing to consider that even if you prevent ID, the amount of deaths caused by ID may decrease but doesn't mean the number of deaths as a whole will decrease.
(C3) a cause need not be a necessary cause
Can someone explain how this abstracted version of AC C is still correct? I'm struggling to understand how it applies.
To have this argument and its underlying math work, it would have to be death -> iatrogenic disease. ID is necessary for death.
However, since we know it's flawed and doesn't work (and iatrogenic disease -> death just seems to be wrong from common sense), that therefore discounts ID as a necessary condition for this argument?
took me 5 mins to get right but I forced myself to find an explanation for every wrong answer
these are soooo hit or miss for me. It either is extremely apparent or I can't see it at all. This one I got in 1 minute, the other I took 10 minutes and got wrong and BR I guessed and got it right. Does anyone have tips? :(
Abstract of the Assumption - If A is prevented no other cause of B?
If thats the case, then I can see why C is correct
This was yet another very helpful question with its lessons to keep in mind for future flawed causal questions.
The argument is flawed because it simply assumes Iatrogenic diseases which is a sufficient cause to death to conclude on the basis that it is a necessary cause which is wrong.
And with the AC introducing the overlooked possibility that there are multiple alternative causes besides Iatrogenic disease the argument is weakened because we can't conclude that half of the deaths will decrease.
While in the next question it mistakes a single effect to be the only effect of a cause, this question conflates a single cause to be the only necessary cause and falls vulnerable to alternative causes, this instance being the sickness that lead patient to receive hospitalization and medical error in the first place.
I saw D as a trap answer choice from a mile away and hit C with such a conviction that I didn't need BR--about time I gain some confidence again hut!
I've seen this question before here... how?!
i'm so confident on my choices and they're just wrong bruh
I'm flopping
"This seems like a totally logical argument to me, so I am in trouble." Me every day since I bestowed this endeavor of taking the LSAT since May.
got down to a and c, ended up choosing a bc im actually dumb and misread the stim LOL
I'm confused about what this means: "Again, recall that the conclusion is conditional. We’re already positing a hypothetical world where we’ve prevented all iatrogenic diseases."
Does this mean that since the conclusion is conditional, the wrong answer choices will include "prevention of all iatrogenic diseases"
@IsabellaP Hi! A conditional conclusion is when the conclusion contains a conditional relationship, often an "if" statement. In this case, the conclusion is : "Therefore, if medicine could find ways of preventing all iatrogenic disease, the number of deaths per year would decrease by half." When we have a conditional conclusion, the author is asking us to grant them the assumption that something is true. They are saying "Imagine we are in a world where X is true. In that world, we have conclusion Y." For this question, we imagine ourselves in a world where all iatrogenic disease is prevented. In that world, the number of deaths per year would decrease by half. However, we know from the question stem that the argument's reasoning is flawed and so our job is to figure out why the premises do NOT support the conclusion.
I'm not sure that I understand your question about wrong answer choices. The wrong answer choice definitely does not HAVE to include "prevention of all iatrogenic diseases" (consider answer choice E, for example). However, if an answer choice were to say "The reasoning in the argument is flawed because it fails to consider that the prevention of all iatrogenic diseases may not be possible", then yes, it would be incorrect because of the conditional nature of the conclusion. We want to know why the conclusion is flawed within the context of a hypothetical world where all iatrogenic diseases are prevented. Claiming that this hypothetical world cannot exist fails to address the question stem.
@IsabellaP Prevention doesn't necessarily have to be in the wrong answers, as this is a Flaw question; therefore, we're attacking the argument as a whole instead of focusing on the argument's details. However, if this were a question type like MBT, we'd definitely want to make sure the AC included the condition of preventing all iatrogenic disease, as otherwise the hypothetical that the conclusion rests on wouldn't be activated. A sure sign of a wrong answer would be something that states something is certain without using the hypothetical situation, as we have no way of knowing what would happen if the sufficient condition for preventing all iatrogenic disease were not met.
Can someone help me understand why E is wrong? I like C and E as answer choice, but I don't understand why E is wrong. I understand we are dealing with an embedded conditional in the conclusion that states that we are in a world with no Iatrogenic dieases, but answer E is essentially saying in my eyes "as long as there is non-Iatrogenic dieseases, there is bound to be Iatrogenic dieases, therefore to get rid of Iatrogenic diesease, you would have to get rid of all diesease", which is not something we are dealing with. I understand that in a round-about way, answer E is essentially just denying hypothetical in the conclusion, and now that I see that C is right I concede it's the better answer, but still don't see how E is nessecarily wrong.
Any help is appreciated. Thanks in advance.
@jackghenriquez1 Take this with a grain of salt because I don't really know if this is the correct way of thinking lol -
I initially was between C and E and ended up picking E (ugh). Before I listened to the explanation I was trying to figure out why it was wrong on my own and something I realized was the phrasing "noniatrogenic disease" (AC) vs. all other causes (Stimulus). The stim says all other causes and I think that I was wrong to initially assume that "all other causes combined" also meant noniatrogenic diseases. Meaning E wasn't descriptively accurate :)
i am really struggling with these questions haven't gotten any right. And every choice I make is totally tricking me as I feel very confident. C didnt seem right to me because its SO VAGUE. It seems like such a weak answer choice. Does anyone have any tips? Or any other resources that could help me understand?
@lzagrodnik Hi! what helps me:
Do NOT map it out and re-read twice if needed (understand it)
Before looking at the answer choices, think about your own "Flaw" that you can come up with from the stimuli (Does some other factor cause the issues, if the disease is prevented what is not author failing to consider? What if people start dying of another cause?)
take your time & process all the choices and follow your intuition
hope this helps
@lzagrodnik I totally agree w/ you about this Q. I feel like the reasoning is so sound for the flaw itself, but that AC is worded in a way that is really different. Maybe that’s the point, but very confusing.