Q17 - The government health service has said that

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Inference (Most Strongly Supported)

Stimulus Breakdown:
PC doesn't provide info → Gov't won't cover A
PC provide info → Massive clinical trials
Not in circulation → No trials
Circulation → Gov't covers A

Answer Anticipation:
Wow, crazy conditionals, especially for a Most Strongly Supported question! It's time to take some contrapositives to see what we can link up.

Gov't cover A → PC provided info → Massive trials → Circulation → Gov't covers A

Wait, what's going on here? The conditional loops back in on itself? That's weird, but it means that each of these is a necessary condition for itself (and for all of the other elements in the chain). Since there's a timeline here - one thing won't happen until another thing happens - and those things are each necessary for the other to happen, it seems as if A is doomed to not be covered.

As a simplified parallel, think about this situation:
McLane: I won't give you the ransom until you give me the artwork!
Gruber: I won't give you the artwork until you give me the ransom!

In that situation, no one will get anything, because each individual has stated the other event must happen first. Same thing here - PC won't be able to run trials until the government pays for it; the government won't pay for it until trials are run. As Wesley might say, we're at an impasse.

Correct answer:
(B)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Generalization. The stimulus is only about one drug, and this answer choice generalizes to all.

(B) Bingo. While this answer is extreme, the language in the stimulus is conditional, which is equally strong. Since A can't be in widespread circulation until the government pays for it, and the government won't pay for it until it's in widespread circulation, A is not going to be released unless someone flinches (and we're told to treat both sides' statements as true, so that's not gonna happen).

(C) Out of scope. The argument never talks about people paying for it themselves.

(D) Out of scope. The argument never talks about what "should" happen.

(E) Degree. Since there isn't evidence it's cost-effective (that's the piece of information the government is asking for), we can't infer whether it is or is not cost-effective.

Takeaway/Pattern:
Conditional logic generally doesn't establish a timeline (the sufficient condition could happen before or after the necessary condition, as far as the timeline goes). However, it can establish a timeline when it uses words such as "when" and "until" to create the conditionals.

#officialexplanation

[jm.kahn]

This question may seem straightforward at first due to a simple circular chain of conditional logic, but it seems the credited choice isn't provable.

Government health service pays for Antinfia = GHSPA
Provide detailed information about effectiveness = PDIE
Requires massive clinical trials = MCT
Widespread circulation = WC

The stimulus says, GHSPA - > PDIE -> MCT -> WC-> GHSPA

Why can't there be another factor X that can cause both GHSPA and WC to result simultaneously?

X causes both WC and GHSPA simultaneously. So the conditional logic chain above would remain satisfied as both WC and GHSPA are caused at the same time instant, and widespread circulation of Antinfia drug can occur. That would make choice B incorrect.

Can someone explain why a 3rd factor can't cause both WC and GHSPA together?

Would B still be correct if the question was an MBT instead of "mostly likely true"?

Is use of "unless" in some ways different than using "until" in that if the stim used "unless" instead of "until" in the sentences, would it change anything?

It seems "unless" only suggests a conditional (necessary/sufficient) relation, but until may be slightly different.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Interesting perspective jm.kahn, I think I thought along similar lines when I first began working on the LSAT. But here's the deal, the question only asks for what is most supported by the statements above? And it's pretty reasonable to think that Antinfia is not going to make it to the market.

But to your important observation, "until" is the time condition of "unless." And that's the dagger in your argument. Because "until" indicates a time condition (before/after), there cannot be a simultaneous occurrence of widespread circulation and the government health service pays for Antinfia.

So if we cannot have widespread circulation until the government pays for Antinfia, Antinfia will never be in widespread circulation - answer choice (B).

Incorrect Answers
(A) generalizes from a claim made about the drug Antinfia to all drugs.
(C) assumes that some people will want Antinfia even though the government health service will not pay for it.
(D) is out scope. Nothing is known about what "should" happen.
(E) is too strong. We can only say that we don't know whether it's cost effective.

[jm.kahn]

Interesting perspective jm.kahn, I think I thought along similar lines when I first began working on the LSAT. But here's the deal, the question only asks for what is most supported by the statements above? And it's pretty reasonable to think that Antinfia is not going to make it to the market.

But to your important observation, "until" is the time condition of "unless." And that's the dagger in your argument. Because "until" indicates a time condition (before/after), there cannot be a simultaneous occurrence of widespread circulation and the government health service pays for Antinfia.

So if we cannot have widespread circulation until the government pays for Antinfia, Antinfia will never be in widespread circulation - answer choice (B).

Incorrect Answers
(A) generalizes from a claim made about the drug Antinfia to all drugs.
(C) assumes that some people will want Antinfia even though the government health service will not pay for it.
(D) is out scope. Nothing is known about what "should" happen.
(E) is too strong. We can only say that we don't know whether it's cost effective.

Is "until" really then more than simply specifying a necessary-sufficient relationship? No LSAT book seems to talk about it.

can you give an authoritative description of difference between "until" and "unless"?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

can you give an authoritative description of difference between "until" and "unless"?

Not sure I can give an authoritative description of the difference. But I can tell just as "if" is to "when," "unless" is to "until." Both "until and "when" are the time conditions of "unless" and "if" respectively. So, "until" implies a time condition suggesting before and after.

Hope that helps!

[jm.kahn]

Not sure I can give an authoritative description of the difference. But I can tell just as "if" is to "when," "unless" is to "until." Both "until and "when" are the time conditions of "unless" and "if" respectively. So, "until" implies a time condition suggesting before and after.

Hope that helps!

So, what exactly is the difference between saying "not-X unless Y" and "not-X until Y"?

both seem to mean that Y is required for X: X -> Y
If Y is required for X then that automatically means that X can't occur "before" Y. Thus, there is no difference between saying unless instead of until. Similar analysis applies to relationship between if and when, where there doesn't seem to be any difference.
so, what is the difference between until and unless as unless also captures the time condition due to the necessary condition?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

If Y is required for X then that automatically means that X can't occur "before" Y. Thus, there is no difference between saying unless instead of until. Similar analysis applies to relationship between if and when, where there doesn't seem to be any difference.
so, what is the difference between until and unless as unless also captures the time condition due to the necessary condition?

So, I do see it a bit differently. With the language cue "unless" there is no order implied. For example:

A house requires a foundation.

House --> Foundation
(the foundation comes first)

If Johnny takes first prize, he'll celebrate with his friends.

First Prize --> Celebrate
(first prize comes first)

So typically, conditionals do not establish a time condition, but some do: such as "until" and "when."

Hope that helps!

[Jahma002]

It's a circular phenomena.

I won't give you apples till you give me oranges.
I won't give you oranges till you give me apples.

What can you deduct?
The second person won't get any apples and the first won't get any oranges.

What you can't deeuct is:
The government will research a program to turn apples into oranges and oranges into apples.

[FlaneurR675]

I ruled B out instantly for the "never", and I also think this answer makes the stupid assumption that either there's only one government in the world or that the market being discussed here is the only one where widespread circulation can occur. Any thoughts?