LSAT Tricky Insurance

This topic has expert replies
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1302
Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 539 times
Followed by:163 members
GMAT Score:800

by Testluv » Wed May 04, 2011 10:45 am
@Munda:

(A) reads:
(A) People's rights are violated less when they are denied an available medical treatment they need because they lack the means to pay for it than when they are denied such treatment on noneconomic grounds.
Schilling is the private guy. LaForte is the national guy. It's easier to think about LaForte first. He thinks that being denied medical treatment because you can't afford it is a HUGE breach of rights. So to say that your rights are violated LESS when you're denied treatment because you can't pay for it is something he would disagree with. So, LaForte disagrees with (A).

On the other hand, Schilling--the private guy--says that national is more right-infringing because you're denied treatment for noneconomic reasons--access to high-tech medicine and translplants is restricted under national. He thinks this is MORE of a right infringement than the situation LaForte outlines (being denied treatment because your wallet isn't deep enough). In other words, Schilling thinks being denied treatment because your wallet isn't deep enough is LESS of a right infringement than being denied treatment for noneconomic reasons. Schilling would therefore agree with (A).

Does that help?
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto

Legendary Member
Posts: 2330
Joined: 15 Jan 2010
Thanked: 56 times
Followed by:26 members

by mundasingh123 » Wed May 04, 2011 11:12 am
Hi testluv , But the question is
Dr. Schilling's and Dr. Laforte's statements provide the most support for holding that they would disagree about the truth of which one of the following?
Shouldnt Both of them disagree with the CorrectAnswer
I Seek Explanations Not Answers

GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1302
Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 539 times
Followed by:163 members
GMAT Score:800

by Testluv » Wed May 04, 2011 2:05 pm
mundasingh123 wrote:Hi testluv , But the question is
Dr. Schilling's and Dr. Laforte's statements provide the most support for holding that they would disagree about the truth of which one of the following?
Shouldnt Both of them disagree with the CorrectAnswer
Not quite. The question is basically asking what they disagree about. So the right answer is something where one agrees and the other disagrees!
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1101
Joined: 28 Jan 2011
Thanked: 47 times
Followed by:13 members
GMAT Score:640

by HSPA » Wed May 04, 2011 6:25 pm
Testluv wrote:
mundasingh123 wrote:Hi testluv , But the question is
Dr. Schilling's and Dr. Laforte's statements provide the most support for holding that they would disagree about the truth of which one of the following?
Shouldnt Both of them disagree with the CorrectAnswer
Not quite. The question is basically asking what they disagree about. So the right answer is something where one agrees and the other disagrees!
YES for one and NO for other... never expected this to be the question... I thought both shall be NO
First take: 640 (50M, 27V) - RC needs 300% improvement
Second take: coming soon..
Regards,
HSPA.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 218
Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Thanked: 5 times

by cyrwr1 » Wed May 04, 2011 7:05 pm
These types of questions is one of the fifteen(I believe on the LSAT).

It would usually ask what question/statement as an answer choice would one speaker agree while the other agree.

We are more accustomed to the "which of the following would help evaluate the argument?" In that case, we find the polar responses to that questions yield different views on the conclusion(normally one weakens, the other supports).

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 12
Joined: 17 Apr 2011
Thanked: 1 times

by Subeg Gill » Sat May 07, 2011 10:18 pm
mundasingh123 wrote: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 and kidney transplants and open-heart surgery is rationed. People 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 procedures, and people's right to decent medical treatment regardless of income is not violated.

Dr. Schilling's and Dr. Laforte's statements provide the most support for holding that they would disagree about the truth of which one of the following?

(A) People's rights are violated less when they are denied an available medical treatment they need because they lack the means to pay for it than when they are denied such treatment on noneconomic grounds.
(B) Where health insurance is provided by private insurance companies, people who are wealthy generally receive better health care than do people who are unable to afford health insurance.
(C) In countries that rely primarily on private health insurance to pay for medical costs, most people who would benefit from a kidney transplant receive one.
(D) In countries with nationalized health insurance, no one who needs a familiar medical treatment in order to stay alive is denied that treatment.
(E) Anyone who wants a particular medical treatment has a right to receive that treatment.
OA Later
mundasingh123 wrote: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 and kidney transplants and open-heart surgery is rationed. People 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 procedures, and people's right to decent medical treatment regardless of income is not violated.

Dr. Schilling's and Dr. Laforte's statements provide the most support for holding that they would disagree about the truth of which one of the following?

(A) People's rights are violated less when they are denied an available medical treatment they need because they lack the means to pay for it than when they are denied such treatment on noneconomic grounds.
(B) Where health insurance is provided by private insurance companies, people who are wealthy generally receive better health care than do people who are unable to afford health insurance.
(C) In countries that rely primarily on private health insurance to pay for medical costs, most people who would benefit from a kidney transplant receive one.
(D) In countries with nationalized health insurance, no one who needs a familiar medical treatment in order to stay alive is denied that treatment.
(E) Anyone who wants a particular medical treatment has a right to receive that treatment.
OA Later
B/C clear out.
D can also be ruled out since as per Dr. L
With nationalized insurance, rich and poor have equal access to life-saving medical procedures
So,Dr.L would agree to D.
Considering E,Dr.S seems to agree to E.Because throuhout his argument he is concerned about nationalized insurance in which sometimes even when a person can afford/wants a particluar medical treatment can be denied the treatment.
So he must be assuming that anyone who wants a particular medical treatment has a right to receive that treatment.And that right will be violated in case of nationalized insurance.Thats why he opposes NI.

Hope its clear A.

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1325
Joined: 01 Nov 2009
Thanked: 105 times
Followed by:14 members

by vikram4689 » Wed Jun 01, 2011 9:38 pm
Faced the same problem as that of HSPA. How the question means "agree for one and disagree for another", to me it seem that question is asking to choose an option to which both disagrees.
Premise: If you like my post
Conclusion : Press the Thanks Button ;)

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 31
Joined: 10 Dec 2010

by agautam » Thu Dec 08, 2011 10:36 pm
Testluv wrote:@Munda:

(A) reads:
(A) People's rights are violated less when they are denied an available medical treatment they need because they lack the means to pay for it than when they are denied such treatment on noneconomic grounds.
Schilling is the private guy. LaForte is the national guy. It's easier to think about LaForte first. He thinks that being denied medical treatment because you can't afford it is a HUGE breach of rights. So to say that your rights are violated LESS when you're denied treatment because you can't pay for it is something he would disagree with. So, LaForte disagrees with (A).

On the other hand, Schilling--the private guy--says that national is more right-infringing because you're denied treatment for noneconomic reasons--access to high-tech medicine and translplants is restricted under national. He thinks this is MORE of a right infringement than the situation LaForte outlines (being denied treatment because your wallet isn't deep enough). In other words, Schilling thinks being denied treatment because your wallet isn't deep enough is LESS of a right infringement than being denied treatment for noneconomic reasons. Schilling would therefore agree with (A).

Does that help?

But wouldnt this option be agreed to by the Dr laforte because he stresses that the basic care equality is more important and mentions that to deny the basic medical care on the basis of the income is absolutely bad.

In addition because this question sounded to be more like a negative main point question. Isnt D a better choice because A mentions a scenario which can be termed as extra information for the argument.

GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1302
Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Location: Toronto
Thanked: 539 times
Followed by:163 members
GMAT Score:800

by Testluv » Fri Dec 09, 2011 12:44 am
But wouldnt this option be agreed to by the Dr laforte because he stresses that the basic care equality is more important and mentions that to deny the basic medical care on the basis of the income is absolutely bad.


Sounds like you understand Laforte's position well. But let's be careful in interpreting/paraphrasing (A). (A) reads:
(A) People's rights are violated less when they are denied an available medical treatment they need because they lack the means to pay for it than when they are denied such treatment on noneconomic grounds.
or (rephrasing using the fact that a<b is the same as b>a):

People's rights are violated more when they are denied an available medical treatment they need on noneconomic grounds than when they are denied such treatment because they lack the means pay for it.

Would Laforte agree with that? Given that Laforte wants people who can't afford certain medical treatments to still have access to them--he views that as a basic right--would he say "yes, being denied treatment for noneconomic grounds is worse than being denied treatment because you can't pay for it."?
this question sounded to be more like a negative main point question.
Sorry, a what? :) I guess a "negative" main point question would be asking for the opposite of one arguer's main point. That would definitely be an interesting question type but I've yet to see it :)
Actually, here we have two arguers, and the right answer states the point at issue between them. Kaplan calls this type of question (surprise) "point at issue." One cool and helpful thing to note about this type of question is that (a) could have been rephrased to:
(A) People's rights are violated MORE when they are denied an available medical treatment they need because they lack the means to pay for it than when they are denied such treatment on noneconomic grounds.
and it would still be correct. It's just that in this case, Laforte would agree and Schilling disagree. But it would still express the point at issue.
Isnt D a better choice because A mentions a scenario which can be termed as extra information for the argument.
(A) mentions a scenario that is not explicitly mentioned in the argument, yes. However, the scenario (A) contemplates relates completely to the ideas in both speakers' statements and not to any foreign ideas. (A) discusses a scenario comparing which reason--economic or noneconomic--for denial of medical treatment amounts to a greater breach of rights. Those ideas lie flatly within the scope of the argumentative exchange between the two speakers.
Kaplan Teacher in Toronto