Logical Reasoning

PT106 · S1 · Q7 The clinic administrator responds

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Hospital auditor: The Rodriguez family stipulated that the funds they donated to the neurological clinic all be used to minimize patients' suffering.

Auditor

R's family said the funds they donated to the neurology clinic should all be used to minimize patients' suffering. But since 1/5 of those funds has gone to new diagnostic technologies, the clinic has violated those terms.

Administrator's Response

If we improve our diagnostic technologies, we can diagnose many neurological disorders earlier. And in most cases, treating patients in the early stages of disorders leads to less suffering than when we treat patients only once they've hit advanced stages.

Evaluate

We're debating whether allocating 1/5 of a donation towards researching new diagnostic technologies can qualify as "being used to minimize patients' suffering".

The 1st person is saying, .

The 2nd person is saying,

So if we're describing this response we might say things like - it suggests that the allocation of money does not violate the terms of the donation - it suggests that the allocation of money is still going towards minimizing suffering - it points to future ramifications of this allocation of money in order to justify its adherence to the terms of how the money was meant to be used.

Goal

Find something that descriptively matches.

7.

The clinic administrator responds to the hospital auditor by doing which one of the following?

  1. Demonstrating that the hospital auditor’s

    Too Weak: only needs minor tweak

    The second person isn't 90% agreeing with the auditor's conclusion, saying "yeah, you're basically right. We are violating the terms of the agreement." The second person is more defiantly arguing that this money is being used in a way that is in line with the agreement, since it is ultimately aimed at minimizing the suffering of patients.

    6% picked this

  2. Showing that the hospital auditor’s

    Out of Scope: is vs. ought

    There's nothing in the 2nd person's response that treads on the distinction between describing what is and saying what should be. The only distinction we might say the 2nd person is leaning on is one between "immediately minimizing patients' suffering" and "indirectly / ultimately leading to a minimization of patients' suffering".

    7% picked this

  3. Reminding the hospital auditor that,

    Opposite

    When we say "X is tantamount to Y" (f.e. telling your kids that Santa exists is tantamount to lying to your kids), it means that the first thing is essentially no different from the second thing. Our 2nd person is definitely not saying, "being told to spend all this money on minimizing patients' suffering is essentially the same as being told how to spend all this money on minimizing patients' suffering". If anything, the 2nd person would be closer to arguing, "Hey, they just told us to spend this money on minimizing suffering. They didn't tell us how to do that. If we think that funding better early diagnosis leads to more long-term reduction in suffering, we can interpret their mandate however we see fit."

    8% picked this

  4. Arguing that, in assessing the

    Out of Scope: severity

    The 2nd person is not conceding that they are violating the terms of the donation and hoping to downplay the severity of the violation by explaining its noble motives. The 2nd person is making a case that they are not violating the terms of the donation, because the ultimate intent of allocating money towards early diagnosis technologies is still in line with the spirit of the terms of the donation.

    17% picked this

  5. Correct

    Reinterpreting a key phrase in

    Why this is right

    Yikes, this is a tough answer to match up. The key phrase is that the money should be "used to minimize patients' suffering". The auditor's argument is assuming that this phrase means that "using money to minimize patients' suffering = letting that money flow directly to patients". Meanwhile, the administrator is arguing that we don't have to interpret "using money to minimize patients' suffering" in that direct sense. We would still be spending money to minimize patients' suffering indirectly, in the long run, by funding research that we hope will lead to earlier detection of mental disorders. Put another way, the auditor is assuming that "minimize patients' suffering" should be interpreted as "find existing patients who are suffering, and reduce that suffering". The administrator is seeking to interpret "minimize patients' suffering" as being compatible with "do things to prevent suffering from happening in the first place".

    Skill tested: Method · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    64% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free