PrepTest 124, Section 2, Question 17
Reporter: A team of scientists has recently devised(67 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(9 more words not shown)
- ANo test intended(15 more words not shown)
- BA diagnostic test(16 more words not shown)
- CThe new test(17 more words not shown)
- DThose children incorrectly(15 more words not shown)
- EThere was no(16 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
An earlier diagnosis is useful only if it lets us do something useful earlier.
The study gives us encouraging results: the test identified all ten children later confirmed to be autistic, though it also identified two children incorrectly. That makes it imperfect. It doesn't, by itself, tell us when the available treatments can help.
What if those treatments can't be used until age five? Learning a child's diagnosis at eighteen months wouldn't automatically move treatment earlier. That's my first question: does earlier detection allow children to benefit from the treatments sooner? The conclusion needs a connection between the new information and the promised benefit.
What we’re looking for
We're looking for an assumption the reporter needs, so a fact that merely sounds relevant isn't enough. I'd initially expect something about the timing of treatment, but we'll check whether the answers identify that connection or another requirement for using the test.
Working the answers
- A
An earlier test could have been intended to diagnose autism at this age but failed to do so accurately. The new test could then make earlier useful diagnosis possible even though an older attempt existed. “Intended” doesn't mean “worked.” The reporter doesn't need to deny that anyone had previously tried.
- BCorrect
This addresses a different requirement from my initial prediction. The reporter relies on a test with some false positives to support earlier treatment benefits. That reasoning needs it to be possible for such an imperfect test to provide a reasonable basis for treatment decisions.
If any false positive made a test unusable for those decisions, the new test couldn't support the promised benefit. This doesn't say errors are harmless or that every positive result must trigger treatment. It says the possibility of a false positive doesn't automatically make the test an unreasonable basis for deciding what to do.
- C
The conclusion doesn't require this test to work for every child at every level of verbal development. It could help identify some children early while being unsuitable for others. A universal claim about who can be evaluated is stronger than the argument needs.
- D
The conclusion concerns earlier benefits for autistic children, not a guarantee that every child tested will avoid harm. Risks to children incorrectly identified would matter in assessing the test's overall merits. But the stated claim about benefits doesn't require those risks to be zero. D introduces a broader assurance than the reporter's conclusion provides.
- E
Evidence that autism can affect young children is different from a test that accurately identifies which children are autistic. Researchers could already have had evidence of its occurrence at that age while lacking this diagnostic tool. The reporter doesn't need to claim that no such evidence existed.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.