PrepTest 106, Section 1, Question 4
Dental researcher: Filling a cavity in a tooth(60 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(9 more words not shown)
- ADentists should perform(22 more words not shown)
- BDentists should help(15 more words not shown)
- CA condition that(15 more words not shown)
- DA condition that(14 more words not shown)
- EA condition that(16 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A procedure can cause some damage and still be worth doing. If leaving a problem untreated would cause much greater harm, the damage from treatment alone wouldn't settle what a dentist should do.
The researcher gives us a reason to hesitate, though: many cavities never reach the point where they become harmful. On the passage's account, filling definitely damages healthy tooth material, while leaving a cavity alone might never harm the nerves.
Can the dentist tell which cavities will progress? If not, waiting could involve a risk. And could a patient have another reason to want a filling, such as appearance? Those are questions the recommendation leaves open. I can understand its caution without assuming that the tradeoff has already been settled.
What we’re looking for
We need a principle supporting the researcher's reasoning. The movement to justify is from definite damage caused by treatment and only possible damage from the condition to a recommendation against treating until the threat is imminent. My initial concern is whether the dentist can judge that threat, but let's look for a rule that supports the researcher's actual comparison.
Working the answers
- A
Don't eliminate this just because it discusses what dentists should perform. Its “only if” clause also limits treatment. The problem is the test it supplies: likely long-term benefit combined with no immediate damage.
The passage establishes that filling inevitably damages healthy parts of a tooth, without specifying the timing of that damage. Its central comparison is definite treatment damage versus potential harm from the cavity. A adds a timing-and-benefit test rather than directly expressing that comparison. C fits the stated reasoning more closely.
- B
Preventing cavities is a different recommendation from deciding what to do with a cavity that already exists. Dentists could help patients prevent new cavities and still fill every existing one. So B doesn't support the researcher's proposed restriction on filling.
- CCorrect
A cavity whose nerves are not in imminent danger fits the potentially harmful condition the researcher describes: many such cavities never reach the harmful stage. Filling fits the definitely harmful treatment because it inevitably damages some healthy tooth material.
The rule tells us not to use that definite harm to treat a condition that is only potentially harmful. That supports the researcher's caution. It doesn't resolve every practical question we raised, but it gives the missing principle connecting the stated comparison to the recommendation.
- D
We aren't told that cavities typically progress to the harmful stage. Saying many do not progress doesn't tell us what usually happens either way. We also aren't told that fillings provide only temporary relief. Both descriptions would need support before this principle could do the intended work.
- E
This requires treatment unless constant surveillance is possible. It therefore gives us a reason to treat a potentially harmful condition when it cannot be constantly watched. The researcher instead recommends withholding a filling unless the nerves are in imminent danger. Nothing in the passage establishes constant surveillance or connects that condition to the proposed restriction.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.