#19 - Dr. Schilling: Those who advocate replacing my

[cgleeson]

Hi,
I was able to keep some contenders and eliminate 3 after my first answer read. I went back to A and it sounded good, however I never remember either Dr talking about which system was superior. So I deleted A, that left me with E. The problem I had with E was I did not understand it, I read it a few times and "access" made sense to me. I was able to see both Drs made references to "access" in their statements.
I stayed with this because I see a pattern with myself when I don't understand the wording in the answer I tend to delete it and I move on and subsequently chose the wrong answer.
I think one of my biggest problems is understanding exactly what I'm reading. I have all the LSAT Bibles and Workbooks now hopefully I cane work through this.
Thank you in advance for all guidance.
Chris

[Beth Hayden]

Hi Chris,

It is very confusing wording! LSAT authors love to say things in the most convoluted way possible just to confuse you.

Answer choice (A) says that Dr. Shilling's objections have "no bearing" on the analysis of which system is better. But Dr. Laforte isn't questioning whether people with a lot of money, who can afford expensive treatments, might have more limited access in a country with public health insurance (because the system is based on need, not on who can pay the most). Instead, Dr. Laforte is challenging Dr. Shilling's use of the word "access." If people don't have enough money to pay for high-technology medicine, they don't really have "access" to it. So which type of access is more important? Well, Dr. Laforte thinks that we should value access being equal for everyone--that we should focus on the access that everyone has as a whole, not just what someone with unlimited money can get.

When you see really convoluted wording, take it one word at a time and try not to get intimidated! They are not going to use big obscure words, but they may use words in ways you are not used to, so you have to read a little more carefully to decipher it. Start with what you do understand and use context clues to piece it together. This is a skill you can absolutely get better at, and really comes in handy in law school when you are reading opinions from judges that love to use unnecessarily complicated language!

Hope that helps!
Beth

[cgleeson]

Absolutely! Makes total sense.
Thank you Beth

Hi Chris,

It is very confusing wording! LSAT authors love to say things in the most convoluted way possible just to confuse you.

Answer choice (A) says that Dr. Shilling's objections have "no bearing" on the analysis of which system is better. But Dr. Laforte isn't questioning whether people with a lot of money, who can afford expensive treatments, might have more limited access in a country with public health insurance (because the system is based on need, not on who can pay the most). Instead, Dr. Laforte is challenging Dr. Shilling's use of the word "access." If people don't have enough money to pay for high-technology medicine, they don't really have "access" to it. So which type of access is more important? Well, Dr. Laforte thinks that we should value access being equal for everyone--that we should focus on the access that everyone has as a whole, not just what someone with unlimited money can get.

When you see really convoluted wording, take it one word at a time and try not to get intimidated! They are not going to use big obscure words, but they may use words in ways you are not used to, so you have to read a little more carefully to decipher it. Start with what you do understand and use context clues to piece it together. This is a skill you can absolutely get better at, and really comes in handy in law school when you are reading opinions from judges that love to use unnecessarily complicated language!

Hope that helps!
Beth