PrepTest 106, Section 1, Question 7
Hospital auditor: The Rodríguez family stipulated that the(96 more words not shown)
The clinic administrator responds to(10 more words not shown)
- Ademonstrating that the(13 more words not shown)
- Bshowing that the(17 more words not shown)
- Creminding the hospital(21 more words not shown)
- Darguing that, in(15 more words not shown)
- Ereinterpreting a key(15 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
“Minimize patients' suffering” could mean more than paying for immediate relief. What if the money helps doctors discover a disorder early enough to spare patients some later pain?
That's the route the administrator describes. The research would improve early diagnosis if successful, and patients treated early usually suffer less than patients treated later.
Research spending and spending to minimize suffering need not be competing categories. One can be a way of doing the other.
The auditor has treated the donation's goal as though it specifies a direct method: money must flow straight to patients. The administrator gives the goal a broader application, including work that can reduce suffering indirectly. We don't know every detail of what the family intended; we do know how this reply challenges the auditor's interpretation.
What we’re looking for
For the response question, I'd describe that as explaining why this research counts as minimizing suffering. The administrator is disputing the accusation that the money is being misused.
Working the answers
- A
The administrator doesn't concede that the auditor's conclusion is broadly correct. The reply gives a reason to reject the charge of violating the terms: the research can serve the required purpose. That is more than adding a minor exception to an otherwise accepted criticism.
- B
A difference between what happens and what should happen isn't the distinction the reply draws. Both speakers discuss how the clinic's spending relates to the purpose it was required to serve. The administrator doesn't accuse the auditor of confusing an actual practice with an obligation; the administrator argues that research can accomplish the goal.
- C
“Tantamount” means equivalent. C would say that specifying the goal also specifies the method. But the administrator's point is that research can be a way to minimize suffering even though the auditor focuses on direct spending. Being told to pursue that goal doesn't, on this reply, restrict the clinic to the auditor's particular method.
- D
Good motives could make a violation seem less blameworthy, but the administrator is challenging whether there is a violation at all. The response isn't “We broke the condition for a good reason.” It's “This research can fulfill the condition.” Assessing the severity of admitted wrongdoing would be a different response.
- ECorrect
The key phrase is “minimize patients' suffering.” The auditor interprets it narrowly enough to exclude research spending. The administrator includes the indirect benefit of earlier diagnosis and treatment.
That interpretation undermines the assumption that putting money into diagnostic research necessarily takes it away from the donation's purpose. If research can lead to less suffering, it need not violate a requirement that the money be used to minimize suffering.
More Strategy of Argument questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strategy of Argument questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.