PrepTest 106, Section 1, Question 6
Hospital auditor: The Rodríguez family stipulated that the(96 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(14 more words not shown)
- Awhether early treatment(17 more words not shown)
- Bwhether the patients(19 more words not shown)
- Cwhether the Rodríguez(18 more words not shown)
- Dwhether the neurological(22 more words not shown)
- Ewhether the Rodríguez(24 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Couldn't research reduce patients' suffering too? Spending money directly on someone who is already in pain is one way to help. Developing a way to detect a disorder earlier could be another, if earlier treatment prevents some of the suffering that would otherwise follow.
The auditor moves from “this money funds research” to “this money violates the donation's terms.” That assumes a narrow reading of the goal. The family said to minimize suffering; the quoted condition doesn't explicitly say that every dollar must go directly to current patients.
The administrator supplies the connection I wanted. Successful research would allow earlier diagnosis, and earlier treatment usually means much less suffering than treatment at an advanced stage. The research could therefore serve the stated purpose through a less direct route. This isn't a claim that diagnosing a disorder prevents the disorder itself, or that the research is guaranteed to succeed.
What we’re looking for
We're asked for the disagreement. The auditor says this allocation violates the family's condition; the administrator defends it as a way to fulfill that condition. Keep the focus on whether this use of the donated funds meets the stated goal.
Working the answers
- A
The administrator says earlier treatment usually produces far less suffering, not necessarily no suffering. But the auditor takes no position on that medical comparison. The auditor's complaint is about where the money goes. We can't turn it into a claim that early treatment completely eliminates suffering, or that it doesn't lessen suffering.
- B
Neither speaker assesses whether the clinic's present treatment is adequate. The research could improve diagnosis in the future whether current care is good or poor. Their disagreement concerns the donated money's proper use, not a judgment about the quality of care patients now receive.
- C
The administrator doesn't dispute the family's stated condition. The response tries to show that research can minimize suffering, which accepts that goal while defending a different way to reach it. They disagree over applying the condition, not whether the family stated it.
- DCorrect
The auditor says the clinic is not adhering to the condition because nearly one fifth of the money goes to research instead of directly to patients. The administrator's response defends the allocation: earlier diagnosis can lead to earlier treatment and less suffering, so the research serves the required purpose.
The same spending decision receives opposite judgments. One speaker treats it as a violation; the other explains why it can fulfill the donation's terms.
- E
We aren't told what specific expenditures the family anticipated. Perhaps it expected diagnostic research; perhaps it never considered it. The administrator argues from what the research can accomplish, not from knowledge of what the donors foresaw. The auditor likewise doesn't make a claim about their predictions.
More Disagreement questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Disagreement questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.