I got this question incorrect on the first attempt because I forgot about the crucial conditional in the conclusion. Just a reminder for anyone that it might help:
when there is a conditional in the conclusion, any AC that challenges that hypothetical world is going to be irrelevant to the argument
I got the last 3 three wrong, felt those were all really hard, and then I felt that the answer to this one was hilariously obvious. But this is a difficulty 4 question. Make it make sense
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.
121 comments
I got this question incorrect on the first attempt because I forgot about the crucial conditional in the conclusion. Just a reminder for anyone that it might help:
when there is a conditional in the conclusion, any AC that challenges that hypothetical world is going to be irrelevant to the argument
5/6 correct so far. woah!
researcher/lsat:
bro
My first L in this section. I blame it on being up late celebrating the Knicks winning the chip.
I got this one right but now I'm worried I didn't see the trick that got people to choose A or E.
oh Thank God I was like there is no way C is not the right one
I got the last 3 three wrong, felt those were all really hard, and then I felt that the answer to this one was hilariously obvious. But this is a difficulty 4 question. Make it make sense
@JohnThorn send me a message, I'd be more than happy to help you.
@JohnThorn Same here! A row of wrong questions and this ... correct... Are we finally getting it?? lol
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).
@jessverpez 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!