Q23 - Physician: There were approximately

[mcgarrk]

I chose E, but I'm having a hard time understanding why A is wrong.

The physician definitely believes that trampolines cause injuries to a significant number of people using them and states this in absolute terms with the number 83,400. But the trampoline enthusiast states that, in relative terms, (i.e. when comparing the percent growth in trampoline sales), the percent growth in injuries is in fact NOT that significant.

Is A wrong because it states that trampolines cause injuries to a significant NUMBER of people and we only know the trampoline enthusiast's opinion on the relative percent increase in injuries (and not her opinion on the actual, absolute number of people injured)?

[giladedelman]

Thanks for the question!

Two things. First, you're right: the trampoline enthusiast never disputes the physician's figures; he never says, "That's not a significant number!"

But, it's not really an issue of absolutes versus percents. We don't know whether the trampoline enthusiast thinks the absolute numbers or the percent increase is "significant" or not. His argument simply never addresses this. Even the physician never really comes out and says this is a "significant" number. I would always be skeptical of an answer that hinges on such a wishy-washy word.

(E) is correct, on the other hand, because after the physician says that trampolines should only be used under professional supervision, the trampoline enthusiast says "I disagree," and then points out that even under supervision there will be a risk. It is clear that he is disagreeing with the physician's prescription, and not with the injury statistic cited.

(B) is wrong because neither argument gets into what the main source of injuries is.

(C) is wrong because the physician never addresses whether injuries are going up or down.

(D) might be tempting, but the trampoline enthusiast never says that professional supervision wouldn't reduce injuries; he just says that there would still be a risk. So we're not sure what he thinks about this.

[samantha.rose.shulman]

Here's another explanation!

PT65, S1, Q23 (Identify the Disagreement)

The correct answer is (E).

This is an Identify the Disagreement question. Do you remember our process? We (1) identify the overlap, and (2) anticipate the point of disagreement.

We want to be literal, even though it may be easy to assign certain opinions to the physician and trampoline enthusiast. Incorrect answers will try to take advantage of those of us who make assumptions. The correct answer will involve something directly, rather than indirectly, mentioned in the text of the stimulus.

Now we need to identify the overlap. Notice that this task is a bit more difficult. The trampoline enthusiast starts with, "I disagree" _ but what does he disagree with? The physician makes two potential points that the trampoline enthusiast could disagree with: (1) the premise regarding the number of trampoline-related injuries per year, and (2) the conclusion that trampolines are quite dangerous and should only be used under professional supervision. The enthusiast never mentions the actual number of injuries, but instead states that the percentage sales of home trampolines have increased much more than the percentage of trampoline-related injuries. This first point, therefore, does not overlap and cannot be the point of disagreement. This leaves us with the conclusion, which must be our area of overlap.

Since there is only one area of overlap (which is not uncommon with this type of question) we have also found our point of disagreement. The enthusiast seems to makes it more evident that he disagrees with the physician’s conclusion when he states; "every exercise activity carries risks, even when carried out under professional supervision". So our point of disagreement is that the physician thinks that trampolines should be used only under professional supervision and the enthusiast does not.

Now that we have our point of disagreement, let’s look at our answer choices.

One helpful tactic when attacking the answer choices is assigning "yes", "no", or "don’t know" responses to both individuals for each answer choice. We can eliminate answer choices if (1) both would respond "yes", (2) both would respond "no", or (3) one or both would respond "don’t know".

(A) is incorrect. It seems like the physician would agree with this, but the word "significant" is hard to define so we cannot be sure. Remember to be literal! Even if the physician did agree with this, we certainly do not know what the trampoline enthusiast thinks. Eliminate!

(B) is incorrect. Does the physician ever discuss home trampolines specifically? No! This can't be the point of disagreement. Also, even though the enthusiast mentions home trampolines, we don’t know if he thinks they are the "main source" of trampoline-related injuries.

(C) is incorrect. The physician mentions the number of trampoline-related injuries, but never the rate or whether it is increasing or decreasing. Also, the enthusiast states that trampoline-related injuries are increasing at a smaller rate in comparison with the sales rate. He never discusses the rate of trampoline-related injuries on its own.

(D) is more tempting, but incorrect. It seems that the physician agrees because he recommends that all trampolines have professional supervision. We cannot say with certainty, however, that the enthusiast disagrees. The enthusiast states, "every exercise activity carries risks, even when carried out under professional supervision". The enthusiast could still agree that professional supervision reduces the number of trampoline-related injuries (even if just by 1). There is another word in this answer choice that makes it incorrect _ "tends". This means more often than not, or a majority of the time. Although the physician clearly recommends professional supervision, we cannot know that this means he thinks it reduces injuries a majority of the time.

(E) is correct. The physician would respond to this statement as he did in his conclusion with, "yes _ trampoline use is an activity that warrants professional supervision", while the enthusiast would respond, "no _ trampoline use is not an activity that warrants mandatory professional supervision".

[shirando21]

(E) is correct. The physician would respond to this statement as he did in his conclusion with, "yes _ trampoline use is an activity that warrants professional supervision", while the enthusiast would respond, "no _ trampoline use is not an activity that warrants mandatory professional supervision".

I was pretty close, I eliminated ABC, but I was not comfortable with the word "warrant". I totally understood what they disagree with each other is whether trampolines should be used only under professional supervision. But "warrant" makes me feel reverse logic in E. If E says professional supervision warrants the safe use of trampoline, I would have picked it. what does "warrant" actually mean in E? warrant = requires or warrant= be used only under...?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I totally understood what they disagree with each other is whether trampolines should be used only under professional supervision. But "warrant" makes me feel reverse logic in E. If E says professional supervision warrants the safe use of trampoline, I would have picked it. what does "warrant" actually mean in E? warrant = requires or warrant= be used only under...?

The word warrant does not actually indicate a conditional statement. One way to think about something being warranted is to say that it is justified. The word mandatory though does imply a requirement. So we can interpret answer choice (E) as, "trampoline use requires adult supervision."

Hope that helps!

[shirando21]

ok, thanks, Matt~~ you are great!

[JohnS942]

This one is really tough!

[JeremyK460]

Now we need to identify the overlap. Notice that this task is a bit more difficult. The trampoline enthusiast starts with, "I disagree" _ but what does he disagree with? The physician makes two potential points that the trampoline enthusiast could disagree with: (1) the premise regarding the number of trampoline-related injuries per year, and (2) the conclusion that trampolines are quite dangerous and should only be used under professional supervision. The enthusiast never mentions the actual number of injuries, but instead states that the percentage sales of home trampolines have increased much more than the percentage of trampoline-related injuries. This first point, therefore, does not overlap and cannot be the point of disagreement. This leaves us with the conclusion, which must be our area of overlap.

Since there is only one area of overlap (which is not uncommon with this type of question) we have also found our point of disagreement. The enthusiast seems to makes it more evident that he disagrees with the physician’s conclusion when he states; "every exercise activity carries risks, even when carried out under professional supervision". So our point of disagreement is that the physician thinks that trampolines should be used only under professional supervision and the enthusiast does not.

the enthusiast is letting the doctor know that the appearance of such a great number might not be explained by the danger-factor of the activity itself

sometimes breaking the claims into complete isolation can create more distance between the right answer and the reasoning being used

the movement / reasoning in the doctor's argument is what the enthusiast is attacking, and not necessarily one claim more than the other

the doctor:
there was a shitload of trampoline injuries this past year.
this suggests that trampolines should be used only under supervision.

the enthusiast:
there's a shitload because there are more trampolines out there
and there's risk whether supervised or not

basically the enthusiast doesn't think the numbers justify the doc's prescription to help mitigate what he thinks is a dangerous activity

the enthusiast isn't committed to whether supervision will reduce the number of injuries or not