Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Medium

PT148 S3 Q17 Explanation

The government health service

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

TopicsMost Supported

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

The government health service has said that it definitely will not pay for patients to take the influenza medicine Antinfia until the drug's manufacturer, PharmCo, provides detailed information about Antinfia's cost-effectiveness. PharmCo has responded that obtaining such information would require massive clinical trials. These trials cannot be performed until happen only if the government health service pays for Antinfia.

What this question is testing

Most Supported

Your task

Break the argument into its conclusion and evidence, then do exactly what the question stem asks with that structure.

Common trap

Answers that sound relevant to the topic but don't connect to the argument's actual reasoning.

Winning move

Predict what a right answer must do, then test each choice against the conclusion-evidence gap.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
17.

If the statements of both the government health service and PharmCo are true, which one of the following is most likely

Answer choices

  1. Too Strong8% picked this

    The government health service never pays for any medicine unless that medicine has been shown

    Too Strong: never / any /unless One-Claim Support All we know is that the government won't pay for Antinfia until they see info about its cost-effectiveness. We have no justification for assuming this is the government's policy for 100% of medicines. We should also feel "dirty" picking an answer like this, because we know that the correct answers on Most Supported / Must Be True always involve combining information from multiple claims. But this answer just sounds like the first sentence on steroids. It has nothing to do with assessing the interaction of the government's statement with PharmCo's.

  2. Correct78% picked this

    Antinfia will never be in widespread

    Why this is right

    "Never" seems strong, but that is the nature of this stalemate. If we had a hostage / ransom situation where the cops wouldn't send over the money until they had the hostage, and the kidnapper wouldn't send over the hostage until he had the money, then the situation would never resolve. Similarly, if the government won't pay for Antinfia until they get detailed info, and PharmCo can't get detailed info unless the government pays for Antinfia, then we know that we're stuck there. Neither side can get what it needs to proceed, so ... There will never be detailed info from PharmCo. The government will never pay for Antinfia. This answer is talking about widespread circulation, though. What were we told in regards to that? It said that "the drug can be in widespread circulation only if the government pays for it". So since we know that the government will never pay for Antinfia, we know that the drug will never be in widespread circulation.

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

  3. Out of Scope: patients pay7% picked this

    If the government health service does not pay for Antinfia, then many patients will pay

    It would be total speculation to guess what patients will do, because we didn't receive any information at all about patients.

  4. Out of Scope: should3% picked this

    The government health service should pay for patients to

    We can very rarely derive "should" ideas from information that is just factual and descriptive. These two sides are at a crossroads. Both of them need something from the other side in order to proceed. The government doesn't want to pay for a drug until it gets detailed info about the drug's cost effectiveness (that's a reasonable thing for a government to want). Why would we arbitrarily say that PharmCo is in the right, and that the government should capitulate to their demands?

  5. Explicitly Unknown4% picked this

    Antinfia is not

    No one knows whether Antinfia is cost-effective. We would need massive clinical trials for that, which haven't been conducted yet.

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

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

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