PrepTest 126, Section 4, Question 5
Medical specialists report that patients with back muscle(44 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(11 more words not shown)
- AMedical specialists treat(21 more words not shown)
- BMedical specialists who(20 more words not shown)
- CSome back muscle(13 more words not shown)
- DSome back muscle(21 more words not shown)
- EPatients with injuries(21 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The groups end up doing equally well. Did they start in equally bad shape?
Maybe the people getting drugs have worse injuries. On an imaginary pain scale, suppose one group starts at fifteen and the other at ten. If both finish at zero, the first group has come farther. Giving that group an extra treatment could help explain how it reaches the same outcome. Equal results don't establish that the extra treatment did nothing.
Now the specialists say the drugs are necessary for every patient who receives them. That's the apparent puzzle: why call the drugs essential when the group taking them does no better than the group that doesn't?
What we’re looking for
I'd expect the answer to distinguish the patients' needs. Perhaps those prescribed drugs have more severe injuries, while the others can recover with physical therapy alone. We're trying to reconcile the two claims, so we need a way for equal results and necessary drugs to make sense together.
Working the answers
- A
Listing the treatments used for all serious back injuries doesn't explain why anyone needs the drugs. Even if these are the only two treatment plans, we still don't know why one group requires the extra treatment while the other doesn't.
- BCorrect
The specialists accurately identify who needs both treatments and who needs physical therapy alone. That means the patients receiving drugs really do need them, while the comparison group doesn't. Giving each group the treatment it needs can produce similar outcomes.
This doesn't specifically say that the drug group's injuries are more severe, as we predicted. It gives the broader distinction we needed: the groups have different treatment requirements. Their equal results don't show that the patients receiving drugs could have done just as well without them.
- C
Healing completely while receiving two treatments doesn't establish that both were needed. Physical therapy might have done all the work in those particular cases. C reports a successful result without showing the drugs' contribution or explaining why every patient prescribed them needed them.
- D
This is tempting because it gives a situation in which drugs successfully treat an injury. But successful treatment isn't the same as necessary treatment. Would those patients have improved with appropriate physical therapy instead? D doesn't tell us.
It also concerns some injuries made worse by improper therapy, not all the patients prescribed drugs in the comparison. We still need to explain why the specialists can accurately call the drugs necessary for every recipient even though the groups do equally well. A few successful drug treatments don't supply that explanation.
- E
We're comparing treatments for back muscle injuries. Better results for injuries to other muscles don't explain why drugs are necessary in the back-injury group despite its equal outcomes. An answer about a different injury doesn't resolve this comparison.
More Paradox questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Paradox questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.