PrepTest 108, Section 2, Question 15
Each of two drugs, S and T, greatly(83 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(8 more words not shown)
- ADrug S has(8 more words not shown)
- BDrug T is(11 more words not shown)
- CAfter a heart(19 more words not shown)
- DThere is no(22 more words not shown)
- EDrug T works(5 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The extra benefit is small, but it is a life: T prevents one more death for every 120 patients treated. At an extra $2,000 per treatment, using T for all 120 costs an extra $240,000. The arithmetic checks out.
My first reaction to calling this society's decision is to ask who pays. Could an individual choose to pay for the more expensive drug? That's a question about how the decision is made, though, not an escape from the cost comparison. Individual purchases would still use resources, and the argument speaks broadly about society's policy.
What we’re looking for
We're asked for an assumption the argument relies on. I initially want to examine that move to a social decision, but the answer must identify something actually needed for the stated tradeoff. Keep the precise conclusion in view: the author presents saving one additional patient as a choice requiring an additional $240,000. We need to ask what that calculation takes for granted, not merely what might make one drug more attractive.
Working the answers
- A
S could have exactly the same side effects as T, and the stated comparison of extra deaths prevented and extra cost would still arise. Different side effects might matter to a broader treatment decision, but this argument doesn't need S to have an additional disadvantage.
- B
We are given T's extra price. We don't need to know why it costs more to calculate the extra expenditure. It could be newer and costlier to develop, or it could have the same development costs as S. Neither possibility changes the stated $2,000 difference per treatment.
- C
T might remain useful later after an attack, but the argument doesn't require that to be the reason it saves more patients. The trial's result could hold even if the two drugs have the same treatment window. An additional advantage is not automatically an assumption the cost calculation needs.
- DCorrect
This identifies a more precise issue than our initial question about who pays. Why must we give the expensive drug to all 120 patients to get its one additional benefit?
If there were a quick, practical, inexpensive way to identify patients for whom S would work just as well, we could give those patients S and reserve T for patients who need it. For example, suppose we could cheaply distinguish the one patient in a group of 120 whose survival requires T. We could pay the extra $2,000 for that patient, plus the small cost of identifying them, instead of paying the extra $2,000 for all 120.
That would undermine the claim that saving the additional patient requires the $240,000 choice. D rules out this affordable way to target treatment. Its timing and practicality matter because the drugs need to be given promptly. The issue isn't merely that uncertainty makes a decision feel harder; it is whether the expensive treatment must be used broadly to obtain the added benefit.
- E
T could save an additional patient without working faster than S. Perhaps it succeeds in a case where S doesn't, while taking the same amount of time. Speed is a possible difference between the drugs, but we aren't required to assume it to understand either the trial result or the stated price difference.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.