LSAT 148 – Section 1 – Question 11

LSAT 148 - Section 1 - Question 11

December 2016

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:06

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
PT148 S1 Q11
+LR
Strengthen +Streng
Causal Reasoning +CausR
A
0%
157
B
0%
155
C
1%
152
D
98%
162
E
1%
155
120
127
136
 +Easiest 142.771 +SubsectionEasier

A year ago several regional hospitals attempted to reduce the number of patient injuries resulting from staff errors by implementing a plan to systematically record all such errors. The incidence of these injuries has substantially decreased at these hospitals since then. Clearly, the knowledge that their errors were being carefully monitored made the hospitals’ staffs much more meticulous in carrying out their patient-care duties.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that hospital staff have become more careful in their patient care because they know their errors are being monitored. This is based on the observed phenomenon that patient injuries have decreased significantly at hospitals that have started to monitor staff errors that result in patient injury.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that the incidence of injury at these hospitals was not affected by another change that happened around the same time. The author also assumes that the staff at these hospitals knew that they were being monitored during the last year.

A
Before the plan was implemented the hospitals already had a policy of thoroughly investigating any staff error that causes life-threatening injury to a patient.
This is irrelevant, because it only applies to life-threatening injuries, whereas the author is discussing patient injuries in general. This pre-existing policy doesn’t tell us anything new about why overall patient injuries have decreased with the new monitoring plan.
B
The incidence of patient injuries at a regional hospital that did not participate in the plan also decreased over the year in question.
This weakens by making it more likely that there is an alternative explanation for the decrease of patient injuries that is unrelated to the consequences of the plan. After all, the other hospital saw the same outcomes without the plan as a possible cause.
C
The plan did not call for the recording of staff errors that could have caused patient injuries but did not.
This is irrelevant, since the argument already tells us that the plan specifically records staff errors that do cause patient injuries. This doesn’t help us figure out whether the plan was the true cause of the decrease in injuries.
D
The decrease in the incidence of the injuries did not begin at any hospital until the staff there became aware that the records were being closely analyzed.
This strengthens the author’s hypothesis by more closely correlating the staff’s knowledge of their being monitored with the decrease in patient injury, making it more plausible that the former is a direct cause of the latter.
E
Under the plan, the hospitals’ staff members who were found to have made errors that caused injuries to patients received only reprimands for their first errors.
Without more information, it isn’t clear how the plan’s policy toward reprimanding or otherwise punishing staff members might have affected the incidence of patient injury, so this doesn’t give us more reason to believe that the plan succeeded.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 148 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply