Q13 - Physician: The patient is suffering

[aaframian]

Can you explain how you get to the correct answer choice? All the answer choices are difficult to understand for me, even though I understand the stimulus.

[giladedelman]

Thanks for posting!

Yes, one way the LSAT tries to make these Principle Support questions difficult is by making the language in the answer choices somewhat opaque. However, I think if we stay focused on our task, we can deal with something like this without too much trouble.

Specifically, we know that we need a principle that

1) Starts with the right premise, and
2) Leads to the right conclusion.

Any answer that doesn't fit both criteria must be incorrect.

So, this argument tells us that there's no way to tell whether the patient is suffering from disease X or disease Y (though it's definitely one or the other). And since there's no effective treatment X, but there is one for Y, we must therefore act on the assumption that the patient has disease Y.

So we know we need a principle that gets us from the premise that "only one of these two equally possible situations is solvable" to the conclusion that "therefore, we should assume we're dealing with the solvable situation." Most crucially, any answer choice that, if plugged into the argument, doesn't help us conclude that we should assume the patient has disease Y can't possibly help us. Let's see how many we can knock out just with that idea.

(A) says it's more important to treat the diseases than to determine which one the patient has. But this has nothing to do with the conclusion that we should assume it's disease Y! Eliminate it.

(B) says if circumstances are out of your control (which so far sounds good,) then you should assume circumstances are unfavorable. But the argument concludes the exact opposite! It says we should assume the patient has the treatable disease. So this is no good.

(C) is incorrect because the conclusion is about what we should assume, not about testing the truth of that assumption.

(E) takes us to some conclusion about changing the circumstances. But we're trying to conclude that we should assume one particular circumstance. Eliminate.

So all the incorrect answers have this problem: they don't take us to the right conclusion!

(D), on the other hand, gets the job done. We do know that success is only possible if uncontrollable circumstances are favorable -- that is, if the patient has disease Y -- and based on that, we're trying to conclude that we should act on the assumption that circumstances are indeed favorable, that is, that the patient does indeed have disease Y. So it's a match!

Does that clear this one up for you?

[zl7391e]

Hey guys,
I changed three times on this question from E to D and then finally to E.

I'm still not convinced as why we can't use E as a principle to help us conclude that we must act as if it's Y.

The match is as follow:
"Only one strategy carries the possibility of success" = "only the treatment for Y carries the possibility of success" (So, 'treatment for Y' refers to 'strategy', and 'success' is curing of the patient)

circumstances (=indeterminate situations X or Y) must as much as possible be changed to (=Y instead of [X or Y]) fit this strategy (=treatment for Y)

In words:
We know that only one strategy carries the possibility of success. That is, we adopt the treatment for Y as our strategy. Given that, we're trying to change the circumstances, which is (indeterminate situation) X or Y, to the circumstance (determinate situation) Y, to fit the strategy--treatment for Y.

So E seems to me to work.

Another reason why I changed D to E is because of 'favorable' and 'effective'. 'favorable' to me is a emotionally-charged word and 'effective' is not. What is 'effective' needs not be 'favorable'. However common the idea that effective treatment for disease is favorable, it's still an assumption. I'm sure it is shared among many people and so do I. But many LSAT questions plays with our common sense assumption. Further, I have the impression that most assumptions expected of test-takers on LSAT are factually-based, and not some emotionally-based ones.
By factually-based assumption, I mean something like 'all bachelors are unmarried'. By emotionally-based assumption, I mean something such as 'effective treatment is favorable' (I agree but I can't take it for granted on the LSAT). That makes me choose E instead of D.

I truly appreciate your help if anyone could clarify my confusion and question. Thank you!

[giladedelman]

But "favorable" is not at all "emotional"; we are not making any assumptions here! As used in answer (D), favorable doesn't mean "good," it means "favoring success," that is, promoting or allowing success, i.e., advantageous. So it's not any kind of value judgment. It's just saying that when success depends on a circumstance being favorable/advantageous/useful, we must act on the assumption that the circumstance really is thus.

Anyway, even if you didn't catch that, you still should have chosen (D) as the lesser of two evils. Why? Because (E) is 100% concretely wrong. The argument is about assuming that the patient has disease Y. It doesn't mention anything about actually changing the circumstances. It doesn't suggest, for instance, that we try to make the patient have disease Y. Assuming something is the case is not at all the same as changing something.

Does that make sense?

[zl7391e]

Now I see! It makes perfect sense now. Thanks so much for clarifying my confusions!

[Shiggins]

I am still having some difficulty eliminating C

Doesn't the conclusion say we should act on the assumption that the patient has a case of Y.

Isn't acting on the assumption a testing of it to see if the patient can be cured.

Any further clarification will help, thank you.

[lhermary]

'Beyond one's control' threw me off. I eliminated it immediately because of it. It is not in the stimulus in any way. In order for me to believe D is a possibility I have to assume that 'success is not in one's control'

What should have I done when I first approach this question?

[ericha3535]

D is sorta hard to decipher but here is my 2 cent:

First of all, A,B,C and E contain a term that make them unattractive:
A) More important
B) unfavorable
C) test
E) circumstance fit

D) is essentially saying this: When success is possible only if a circumstance beyond one's control is favorable (simply put, if a person with X can only be treated effectively or successfully with the assumption that perhaps that person may have Y not X [again, refer back to stimulus - it says X and Y are indistinguishable,]) then one's... favorable (simply put the doctors IN FACT must treat that person's disease as if it is indeed Y even if they have a doubt that the disease might be X).

[WaltGrace1983]

This is kind of a tough one but here is what I gathered...

There is an effective treatment for Y but there is not one for X
→
We should assume that the patient has Y

So what is going on here? Well, we are assuming that, when there is no possibility of success in one instance, we should assume the other instance - the one that does have the possibility of success.

(A) This is what I originally picked but then when I came back I erased it and went with the correct answer. This is incorrect basically because it is unsupported. This is a big thing with principle questions. If we are deriving a principle then it should be almost (or in some cases, definitely) 100% supported. This is not supported because of the phrase more important. We are given no indication that "treating the diseases" is more important than "determining which of the two diseases that patient has." Maybe - and I'd actually presume that this is so - the former is much more important than the latter but the latter is impossible to figure out!

(B) The "circumstances beyond a decision maker's control" is the disease itself. While the physician is the decision maker. The doctor cannot control what disease the patient has but he/she must absolutely decide what to do. However, this is wrong because it is a reversal of the conclusion. The argument says that "we must act on the assumption of Y" - the more favorable one. However, I would argue that (B) would be right if the second clause was substituted with something about the "favorable" being assumed.

(C) We know nothing about testing assumptions and testing assumptions is not even mentioned in the argument. This is hard to eliminate from reason alone because it is so out of scope. It is just so far off.

(E) Here is the simple way to eliminate (E): the argument talks about changing strategies to fit the circumstances. The circumstances are unchangeable! Whether or not the patient has X or Y...it is unchangeable! Thus the argument is not changing the circumstances, it is just applying the strategy.

(D) This is correct. Let's dissect what it is saying.

(Success is possible → circumstance is favorable) → strategy must be based on the assumption that the circumstance is favorable

Confusing, right? Let's do a little adjustment, contrapositive style.

(circumstance is not favorable → success is not possible) → strategy must be based on the assumption that the circumstance is favorable.

So do you see what is happening here? "The circumstance is not favorable"? Well yes! The circumstance is that the physician doesn't know if the patient has X or Y. That isn't favorable because only Y has an effective cure. So the premise matches up!

Now onto the conclusion: "strategy must be based on the assumption that the circumstance is favorable." This is exactly what is happening with the conclusion of the argument! The strategy is being based on the "the assumption that the patient has a case of Y"

[Smokyearlgrey]

This is kind of a tough one but here is what I gathered...

There is an effective treatment for Y but there is not one for X
→
We should assume that the patient has Y

So what is going on here? Well, we are assuming that, when there is no possibility of success in one instance, we should assume the other instance - the one that does have the possibility of success.

(A) This is what I originally picked but then when I came back I erased it and went with the correct answer. This is incorrect basically because it is unsupported. This is a big thing with principle questions. If we are deriving a principle then it should be almost (or in some cases, definitely) 100% supported. This is not supported because of the phrase more important. We are given no indication that "treating the diseases" is more important than "determining which of the two diseases that patient has." Maybe - and I'd actually presume that this is so - the former is much more important than the latter but the latter is impossible to figure out!

(B) The "circumstances beyond a decision maker's control" is the disease itself. While the physician is the decision maker. The doctor cannot control what disease the patient has but he/she must absolutely decide what to do. However, this is wrong because it is a reversal of the conclusion. The argument says that "we must act on the assumption of Y" - the more favorable one. However, I would argue that (B) would be right if the second clause was substituted with something about the "favorable" being assumed.

(C) We know nothing about testing assumptions and testing assumptions is not even mentioned in the argument. This is hard to eliminate from reason alone because it is so out of scope. It is just so far off.

(E) Here is the simple way to eliminate (E): the argument talks about changing strategies to fit the circumstances. The circumstances are unchangeable! Whether or not the patient has X or Y...it is unchangeable! Thus the argument is not changing the circumstances, it is just applying the strategy.

(D) This is correct. Let's dissect what it is saying.

(Success is possible → circumstance is favorable) → strategy must be based on the assumption that the circumstance is favorable

Confusing, right? Let's do a little adjustment, contrapositive style.

(circumstance is not favorable → success is not possible) → strategy must be based on the assumption that the circumstance is favorable.

So do you see what is happening here? "The circumstance is not favorable"? Well yes! The circumstance is that the physician doesn't know if the patient has X or Y. That isn't favorable because only Y has an effective cure. So the premise matches up!

Now onto the conclusion: "strategy must be based on the assumption that the circumstance is favorable." This is exactly what is happening with the conclusion of the argument! The strategy is being based on the "the assumption that the patient has a case of Y"

Very well done!

but minor mistake i should correct on. you wrote the terms backward in the E

(E) Here is the simple way to eliminate (E): the argument talks about changing strategies to fit the circumstances. The circumstances are unchangeable! Whether or not the patient has X or Y...it is unchangeable! Thus the argument is not changing the circumstances, it is just applying the strategy.

the argument talks about changing circumstances to fit the strategy. And changing circumstances, namely the type of diseases one has is not possible.

Just a minor revision.

CHeers