LSAT 106 – Section 2 – Question 07

LSAT 106 - Section 2 - Question 07

June 1999

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

Target time: 0:53

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
PT106 S2 Q07	+LR +Exp	Evaluate +Eval Net Effect +NetEff Math +Math	A 2% 153 B 0% 130 C 1% 152 D 0% 162 E 96% 165	128 136 144	+Easier	147.566 +SubsectionMedium

For every 50 dogs that contract a certain disease, one will die from it. A vaccine exists that is virtually 100 percent effective in preventing this disease. Since the risk of death from complications of vaccination is one death per 5,000 vaccinations, it is therefore safer for a dog to receive the vaccine than not to receive it.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that it’s safer for dogs to get the vaccine than to skip it. She supports this by saying that the vaccine is almost 100% effective at preventing the disease. Also, the risk of death from the vaccine is 1 in 5,000, whereas 1 in 50 dogs who get the disease die.

Notable Assumptions

For the vaccine to be more beneficial than costly, the author must assume that the disease is fairly common. While 1 in 5,000 vaccinated dogs die, and 1 in 50 dogs who get the disease die, we don’t know how many dogs will actually get the disease in the first place.

She also assumes that her argument applies to any dog, without considering how the disease or vaccine might affect different breeds or dogs differently.

She also overlooks any unaddressed costs of getting the vaccine, or any unaddressed costs or benefits of not getting it.

the total number of dogs that die each year from all causes taken together

Irrelevant— the author only addresses deaths from this particular disease and vaccination. The number of dogs that die each year from everything else is not relevant to her argument.

whether the vaccine is effective against the disease in household pets other than dogs

Irrelevant— the author is only discussing the effectiveness of the vaccine among dogs. How other animals might be affected by the disease or the vaccine doesn’t matter here.

the number of dogs that die each year from diseases other than the disease in question

Irrelevant— like (D), the author is only concerned with the number of dogs that die each year from the particular disease in question. She doesn’t address the dangers or mortality rates of any other diseases.

the likelihood that a dog will contract another disease such as rabies

Irrelevant— like (C), the author’s argument only addresses the disease in question. It doesn’t matter how likely a dog might be to contract some other kind of disease.

the likelihood that an unvaccinated dog will contract the disease in question

If the likelihood of catching the disease is high, getting the vaccine may indeed be more beneficial, since the risk of death from the vaccine is much lower than from the disease. But if the likelihood is low, the added risk of vaccination might be more costly overall.

LSAT 106 – Section 2 – Question 07

LSAT 106 - Section 2 - Question 07

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

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 106 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Leave a Reply Cancel