Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Medium

PT5 S3 Q19 Explanation

Dr. Schilling: Those who advocate

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

TopicsMethod

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

Dr. Schilling: Those who advocate replacing my country’s private health insurance system with nationalized health insurance because of the rising costs of medical care fail to consider the high human costs that consumers pay in countries with nationalized insurance: access to high–technology medicine is restricted. Kidney transplants are denied their right to treatments they want and need.

Dr. Laforte: Your country’s reliance on private health insurance denies access even to basic, conventional medicine to the many people who cannot afford adequate health coverage. With nationalized insurance, rich and poor have equal access to life-saving medical treatment regardless of income is not violated.

What this question is testing

Method

Your task

Describe how the argument proceeds — the technique it uses to reach its conclusion.

Common trap

Answers that describe a method the argument doesn't actually use.

Winning move

Track the role each statement plays, then match that to the choice describing the same moves.

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

The question
19.

In responding to Dr. Schilling, Dr. Laforte employs which one of the

Answer choices

  1. Trap5% picked this

    showing that the objections raised by Dr. Schilling have no bearing on the question of which of the two systems under

  2. Trap0% picked this

    calling into question Dr. Schilling’s status as an authority on the issue of whether consumers’ access to medical treatments is restricted in

  3. Trap16% picked this

    producing counterexamples to Dr. Schilling’s claims that nationalized health insurance schemes extract high human

  4. Trap0% picked this

    demonstrating that Dr. Schilling’s reasoning is persuasive only because of his ambiguous use of the

  5. Correct78% picked this

    showing that the force of Dr. Schilling’s criticism depends on construing the key notion of access in

    Why this is right

    Answer E is correct.

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

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