#4 - It is more desirable to have some form of socialized

[Adam Tyson]

As discussed in the original explanation in this thread, S2KMo, the flaw in the argument is not about a connection between socialized medicine and technological achievement, but between lower infant mortality and technological achievement. Answer B fails to address that problematic gap, but focuses instead on a gap that isn't really a problem.

In addition, as you noted, answer B is playing a bit of a shell game by swapping out the term "socialism" for the term "socialized medicine", which was what the argument was about. There doesn't need to be any connection between the economic system of socialism and technological achievement, so saying that the argument doesn't establish one isn't a flaw of the argument!

[Franklin varela]

Hello the reason I avoided answer A was because it felt like a restatement of the stimulus how do I avoid making a similar mistake in the future.

[Dave Killoran]

Hello the reason I avoided answer A was because it felt like a restatement of the stimulus how do I avoid making a similar mistake in the future.

Hi Franklin,

This is a good question There is, unfortunately, no simple answer though! The first step is to realize that they will indeed play games that are based on small word and meaning changes within answer choices. This is one of the true difficulties of the LSAT, and something that you have to be on-guard for. Second, you will get better over time at recognizing what they are doing. Battling the LSAT is a learning process, but one of the benefits is that you will begin to recognize the types of answers they use as well as the language. Now that you know you have to be prepared for small changes in meaning while they use similar language, next time you will be better situated to recognize what is happening. Forewarned is forearmed! Last, just as a point for this particular problem, in a Weaken question they are extremely unlikely to simply restate an part of the stimulus as a complete answer. There's be no reason for them to do it, and it would be too easy to eliminate. So, in a future Weaken question if you see what appears to be a direct restatement to you, just read it again to make sure

Please let me know if that helps. Thanks!

[andriana.caban]

Hi!

Could you provide an example where answer choice (e) is correct? So, what would the stimulus look like if it did have circular reasoning in it! Thanks!

[Brook Miscoski]

Adriana.caban,

Our Logic Reasoning Bible and other materials have sections devoted to recycled LSAT flaws and provide multiple real LSAT questions where circular reasoning is used.

In general, circular reasoning involves a premise that is no different from the conclusion.

[jennyli0804]

Hi,

I think I asked this elsewhere too, but I’m having difficulty with these types of Weaken Questions that do not attempt to weaken the conclusion. I got this question correct and understand why I got it correct, but Lesson 3 teaches us to focus on tackling the conclusions rather than the premises on Weaken Questions. However, I am encountering so many Weaken Questions that ask us to weaken a particular part of the stimulus that is not the conclusion.

In this question, I identified the conclusion to be the first sentence: “It is more desirable to have... the private sector.” However, the question asks us to indicate a flaw in the argument about the technological superiority of socialized medicine, which is part of the premise. At times, it also seems as though some Weaken Question stimuli are fact sets and contain no arguments (e.g. L3HW LR Weaken Q1)

What are we supposed to do when the Weaken Question:
(1) Doesn’t tackle the conclusion
(2) Dosen’t have a conclusion ?

Thank you.

[Adam Tyson]

I answered that other question for you as well, jennyli0804, and the key in this one is that there are TWO conclusions. You identified the main conclusion, which I agree is the first sentence, but the statement about technological superiority is an intermediate conclusion and not just, as you said, "part of a premise." We can tell it's a conclusion by the structure of the entire sentence, which starts with a "since" (a premise indicator), and is broken into two phrases separated by a comma. "Since X is true, Y is true" is a complete argument - "X is true" is a premise and "Y is true" is a conclusion.

So, you were indeed asked to weaken an argument - just not the main argument! Focus on that portion of the stimulus that you were asked to attack, and show why that premise about infant mortality does NOT support the conclusion about technological superiority.

It's rare for you to be asked to weaken a stimulus that contains no argument, especially when the stem tells you clearly that there IS one (you cannot identify "a flaw in the argument" unless an argument is present). If you are having trouble identifying what it is you are supposed to weaken, re-read the stimulus and look for clues there.

[jennyli0804]

Thank you so much @Adam for answering both of my questions! I think I know how to tackle these Weaken questions properly now!

[sparrrkk_]

Hi,

So, I understand that A is the correct answer as it allows a different cause for lower infant mortality rate (one of the ways to attack correlation --> causation).
However, I'm struggling to understand the difference between technological superiority vs. allowing greater access to medical care. What is technological superiority in this context?
Also, would it be correct to assume that this is the correct answer because "allowing greater access to medical care" could be a characteristic of other systems besides socialized medicine? Thus, the lower infant mortality rate can occur even if the system weren't socialized medicine.

Thank you!

[Adam Tyson]

I'm going to rip this answer from the headlines for you, sparrrkk_: greater access is having hospital beds available for all that need one, even if that means converting university dorms and football stadiums and convention centers into hospitals during a pandemic. Technological superiority is actually being able to treat those patients effectively once you get them in those beds, like having ventilators and medicines and other treatment protocols that work. I can give lots of people access and still be technologically inferior if I don't have the latest and greatest equipment, techniques, and other innovations. I can be technologically superior, with all the best gear and top doctors and nurses and PAs, etc., but only offer care to the wealthiest 1% that will pay my extraordinarily high fees, thus limiting access.

The author thinks the better tech is the cause of the lower infant mortality, but answer A suggests that just having more access might be the cause. It's not about whether that access is found in other systems besides socialized medicine, but whether the technology is the cause or whether there might be an alternate cause even within a system of socialized medicine. It's just "here's a possible alternate cause", which is a classic way to weaken a causal argument.