LSAT 105 – Section 2 – Question 02

LSAT 105 - Section 2 - Question 02

February 1999

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:19

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
PT105 S2 Q02
+LR
+Exp
Weaken +Weak
A
91%
165
B
2%
155
C
0%
149
D
1%
151
E
7%
158
130
140
151
 +Easier 145.978 +SubsectionMedium

A director of the Rexx Pharmaceutical Company argued that the development costs for new vaccines that the health department has requested should be subsidized by the government, since the marketing of vaccines promised to be less profitable than the marketing of any other pharmaceutical product. In support of this claim the director argued that sales of vaccines are likely to be lower since each vaccine is administered to a patient only once, whereas medicines that combat diseases and chronic illnesses are administered many times to each patient.

Summarize Argument
The director argues that development costs for the new government-requested vaccine should be subsidized. This is because marketing vaccines is less likely to be profitable than any other pharmaceutical product, since vaccines only need to be administered once and thus sell less than products administered many times.

Notable Assumptions
The director assumes that if the government requests a product, that product should be subsidized to account for the missed profit the company would make from a more marketable product. The director also assumes that relatively lower sales of the vaccine wouldn’t be mitigated by its price or level of sales.

A
Vaccines are administered to many more people than are most other pharmaceutical products.
If the vaccines are administered more widely than most drugs, then the reach of sales would mitigate the fact vaccines are only administered once per patient. This suggests the vaccine will be profitable despite the director’s argument.
B
Many of the diseases that vaccines are designed to prevent can be successfully treated by medicines.
If the vaccine is only one of several pharmaceutical treatment options, it will necessarily be the least lucrative of those. This seems to support the director’s argument.
C
Pharmaceutical companies occasionally market products that are neither medicines nor vaccines.
We’re not interested about some third category of products. The stimulus deals with vaccines and medicines.
D
Pharmaceutical companies other than the Rexx Pharmaceutical Company produce vaccines.
Perhaps those companies should also be subsidized by the government if their vaccines are government-requested. We don’t have enough information here to affect the director’s argument.
E
The cost of administering a vaccine is rarely borne by the pharmaceutical company that manufactures that vaccine.
Even if the cost of administering the vaccine is passed on elsewhere, the manufacturing company still pays the production and marketing costs. These are the costs the director thinks should be subsidized.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 105 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply