PrepTest 114, Section 2, Question 14
Ethicist: Both ASA and TPA are clot-dissolving agents.(69 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(9 more words not shown)
- AASA should never(10 more words not shown)
- BTPA is a(7 more words not shown)
- CThe extra expense(12 more words not shown)
- DASA is a(6 more words not shown)
- ERelatives of a(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
More lives saved sounds like a reason to prefer TPA. But is the added expense the best use of the available money? Perhaps the same funds could save more lives somewhere else. Or perhaps TPA is the better use. We haven't been given enough to decide that larger question.
The numerical claim also has a limit: at most two additional lives out of every 50 patients. That isn't a promise of exactly two extra survivors every time. The ethicist accepts the comparison and adds another consideration: the particular grief of relatives whose family member died because the less expensive treatment was used.
What we’re looking for
I can agree that this grief belongs in the decision without deciding that it overrides every financial concern. That's the distinction to keep when the question asks for the main conclusion. The author wants the savings weighed against more than the count of additional lives. The argument tells us to consider the relatives' grief too; it doesn't announce that one drug must always be chosen.
Working the answers
- A
The author never says ASA should be ruled out in every case. An additional consideration could matter greatly without automatically deciding every treatment choice. A turns a recommendation about what to weigh into an absolute instruction about what to administer.
- B
The reported survival advantage is part of the comparison that sets up the argument. The conclusion concerns how the decision should be made, including a consideration beyond expense and the additional lives saved. B leaves that recommendation out.
- CCorrect
Cost cannot be compared only with the few additional lives saved; the relatives' particular grief must be considered too. That is the point of the final recommendation to weigh the financial saving against “such considerations.”
C doesn't say expense is irrelevant or that the additional lives don't matter. It says those two items don't exhaust what the ethicist wants included in the decision.
- D
The lower price of ASA is a starting fact. It helps explain why someone might choose it and why there is a financial saving to weigh. The conclusion is about what else belongs in that weighing, not simply which drug costs less.
- E
The passage concerns relatives of patients who die because they received the cheaper treatment. It doesn't make this comparison about every death after ASA, regardless of its cause. More importantly, the grief claim supplies a reason for the recommendation. The conclusion tells us to take that grief into account when weighing the savings.
More Role/Main Point questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Role/Main Point questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.