LSAT Set Test IV #7

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 6:48 pm
Thanked: 6 times

LSAT Set Test IV #7

by punitkaur » Tue Nov 24, 2009 9:58 am
For every 50 dogs that contract a certain disease, one
will die from it. A vaccine exists that is virtually
100 percent effective in preventing this disease. Since
the risk of death from complications of vaccination is
one death per 5,000 vaccinations, it is therefore safer for
a dog to receive the vaccine than not to receive it.
Which one of the following would it be most helpful
to know in order to evaluate the argument?

(A) the total number of dogs that die each year from
all causes taken together
(B) whether the vaccine is effective against the
disease in household pets other than dogs
(C) the number of dogs that die each year from
diseases other than the disease in question
(D) the likelihood that a dog will contract another
disease such as rabies
(E) the likelihood that an unvaccinated dog will
contract the disease in question
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Legendary Member
Posts: 1161
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 2:52 am
Location: Sydney
Thanked: 23 times
Followed by:1 members

by mehravikas » Tue Nov 24, 2009 12:14 pm
I would go with E

The argument gives the information that out of every 50 dogs one will die. therefore, we need to know the likelihood or the probability of an unvaccinated dog getting the disease.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 6:48 pm
Thanked: 6 times

by punitkaur » Tue Nov 24, 2009 12:52 pm
Hi Vikas,

The answer is correct, but I don't follow the logic. Can you please explain in detail?

Thanks

Legendary Member
Posts: 1161
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 2:52 am
Location: Sydney
Thanked: 23 times
Followed by:1 members

by mehravikas » Tue Nov 24, 2009 1:00 pm
Ok let me try again :-)

The argument is talking and gives information about the following things:

1. One out of every 50 dogs dies because of the disease
2. Vaccine is a virtual 100% cure for the disease
3. Vaccine has a death rate as well i.e. one death per 5000 vaccines
4. It is safer for a dog to receive a vaccine than not to receive it

So as you can see (from above) that the argument gives a lot of info about vaccine and also that one out of 50 dogs die if they are not vaccinated.

In order to evaluate the argument you would need to know - what is the likelihood that an unvaccinated dog will contract the disease.

Scenario 1 - Let's say 1 in 10000 dogs catches this disease, then vaccinating all the dogs is by no means a practical solution because 1 in 5000 dogs can die after vaccination.

Scenario 2 - Let's say 1 in 10 dogs contract that disease and you already know that 1 out of 50 dogs will die. Therefore the dogs should be vaccinated.

Therefore in order to evaluate the argument you need to know the likelihood, percentage or probability of the unvaccinated dogs contracting the disease.




punitkaur wrote:Hi Vikas,

The answer is correct, but I don't follow the logic. Can you please explain in detail?

Thanks

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 6:48 pm
Thanked: 6 times

by punitkaur » Tue Nov 24, 2009 1:21 pm
got it :). thanks for the explanation!

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 141
Joined: Sat Feb 28, 2009 8:19 am
Thanked: 1 times

by getso » Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:49 am
Nice Explanation..