https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tLOi5CQhdD3wXK8SkKwEjZJBxmkij6eUbQ9yUIWYyps/edit?usp=sharing

Here were my notes from the CC! Hope they help

I thought B should say "fails to show that the absentee rate would not drop if 10 workers were fired" #help ??

missing LR right about now

Interested!

For this question, I gave the premise "that recovery rates are similar for patients with similar illnesses" too much weight. I need to focus on recognizing that the argument is flawed from the start. So even if something sounds good in theory or sounds like it is supportive of the conclusion I must never accept that (unless the question types identifies that the argument is sound). In this case, LSAT writters tried to use averages and percentages to draw their conclusion. Let's break it down and understand what these words actually mean and how much consideration they should recieve.

P1 - On average, the length of stay (LOS) for patients at Hospital E is 4 days and for Hospital U it is 6 days.

P2 - recovery rates at both Hospital E and U are similar for patients with "similar illnesses"

FULL STOP. I got this question wrong because I miss understood premise 2. I rulled out the correct answer choice because I thought that it was negating a premise. But in reality, it was not. After being told P2, what do we actually know? If the recovery rates (rr) of patients with similar illnesses (let's say illness X) at both hospitals are similar (let's say 99% rr) then all we know is that of patients with illness X, at both hospital E and U, 99% of patients recover at the same rate.

Can we now draw any conclusion regarding all patients and their lengths of stay? No. Let's see how they try to conclude the argument.

C - Hospital U could decrease its average length of stay (maybe from 6 to 4) without affecting quality of care

Can it? How do we know? Does the fact that both hospitals have similar recovery rates for illness X even effect its patients average length of stay? What if illness X is only affecting 2% of patients in both hospitals?

What if hospital U has longer stays on average because the majority of their patients are recovering from complex surgeries whereas at hospital E, their patients come in for routine procedures or acute issues?

Let's break down the two incorrect ACs I selected.

D - this AC says that the author believes that the LOS is never relevant to the rr of patients. Is this descriptivly accurate? No it's not. The author does not believe this. The author asserts that hospital U could decrease its average LOS without impacting rr. If you place this AC into an extreme setting by asking "does the author think we can reduce the LOS to 0 days and not affect the rr" the answer would be no, the author did not presume that that would not affect the rr. Only reducing the LOS would be plausable.

A - this AC says that the argument equates quality of care with average LOS. Is this descriptivly accurate? No, once again. Side Bar [when choosing an AC, if I am unable to tie it back a diffinitive point in the stimulus in order to give it support, do not under any circumstances, choose that AC]. The author believes that hospital U could decrease its average LOS and not change it's quality of care. If the two variables were being equated then the author would have had to say something that ties the two in tandum: changing one = automatically changing the other. The author never says this. She actually asserts the opposite. You can change one [decrease average LOS] while the other [quality of care] remains the same.

Correct AC C - This is exactly what the author overlooked. Hospital E could be, on average, treating patients with much more complex illness that require longer LOS. I ruled this out becuase I missunderstood P2. If this is true, then it is not the case that they could reduce LOS without affecting quality of care.