PT85.S2.Q9 - Pharmaceutical manufacturers

Ashley2018-1

The stimulus talks about the number of visits per representative decreasing from 640 to 501, but does that mean the number of visits per pharmacist decreased as well? Is it possible the number of visits per pharmacist from these representatives possibly remained the same or even increased depending on the number of representatives working for these manufacturers? Can the number of visits per representative be equated to the number of visits per pharmacist?

Admin Note: https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-85-section-2-question-09/

canihazJD

@"ashley.tien" said:
The stimulus talks about the number of visits per representative decreasing from 640 to 501, but does that mean the number of visits per pharmacist decreased as well?

Not sure if you're referring to the physicians or pharma reps, but either way don't make additional assumptions.

Is it possible the number of visits per pharmacist from these representatives possibly remained the same or even increased depending on the number of representatives working for these manufacturers?

I think you're referring to the number of times a pharma rep sees a physician? Sure its possible. It's possible one rep saw the same physician 100 times. Remember the idea is to weaken - make it likely the conclusion follows from the premises.

Can the number of visits per representative be equated to the number of visits per pharmacist?

So a 1:1 ratio? Sure, but I think this line of reasoning is slightly off track for this question.

We have:

Visits per rep decreased
So physicians are less willing to see reps.

You just need to weaken that.

Ashley2018-1

Is the reasoning that if you have more representatives, then the visits to pharmacists would be more thinly spread out among the representatives leading to a drop in the number of visits?

canihazJD

Yes, that would weaken the argument, and is I believe the right answer. More reps. Less visits per. But more overall.