Q5 - Medical specialists report that

[n.v.igietseme]

I'm unsure why D is wrong. Is it because of the "some" ? Any help would be great!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

(D) is somewhat tempting, but it does not play the specific role the argument requires.

The treatment with drugs and p.t. are happening, presumably, at the same time -- answer choice (D) posits the drugs as an alternative when something goes wrong with the therapy.

You are also right to notice the some -- notice the doctors feel that for those who receive them the drugs are "necessary" -- would we say drugs are "necessary" because of the chance that p.t. might be done incorrectly? No--it's not a great match.

Hope that helps!

[sbuzzetto10]

Can someone please explain why B is correct here?

I thought D was without a doubt the only answer that came close to be being correct. Help!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

What needs to be reconciled is:

"How come specialists state drugs are necessary for some patients, when patients who take drugs and have physical therapy don't do any better than those who do just physical therapy?"

I think what will come in to mind for most of us is "Wow, that evidence sure makes it seem like the drugs aren't actually necessary." The well hidden gap is that maybe those who get both drugs and physical therapy are a different group (imagine them as the "worse off" group) than those who just get physical therapy, and if they are different, maybe not getting the drugs would result in them being far worse off than they would be otherwise. Another way of thinking about it -- maybe certain people need drugs and therapy to do just as well as other people do with only therapy.

If (B) is true, then it makes sense why the specialists would say the medicine is necessary for some folks, even when these folks don't end up doing any better than others who just get physical therapy.

[mcrittell]

Had it between A and B. I ultimately selected A because it included patients that had "serious back muscle injuries," as opposed to B which I thought was vague because it just says that they "prescribe these treatments."

Is A incorrect because it oversteps by stating that "all" patients, when, in fact, some patients could have various treatments aside from these two methods?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

We're looking for something that reconciles two seemingly conflicting ideas --

We're trying to figure out how drugs can be considered necessary for some,

When those who get treated with both drugs and physical therapy have the same outcome as those who just get physical therapy.

The question is, "How could it be true that the drugs are necessary, and yet the consequences are the same for those that do, or those that don't, use the drugs?"

The reason is that different patients could need different treatments to reach the same result, and (B) is related to that issue.

(A), for the most part, gives us information that we already know -- injuries are treated with p.t. or p.t. and drugs. Knowing this doesn't help us reconcile the issue in any way.

(A) is different from what we're already given because it
1) tells us "all" (as you stated) -- how does this help reconcile our issue? Tough to see.

2) "serious" (also something you noticed) -- so, this answer is about something more specific (a serious back injury) than the argument is (back injury). How does this reconcile the difference? Again, it's tough to see.

So, if our job is to find an answer that reconciles the two things we know to be true, (A) isn't helpful in that regard.

Does that help? Please follow up if it doesn't, or if you have any other questions.

[geverett]

Just took this PT a couple days ago. I went with B, but struggled between A and B.

Have an extra question to ask of you Mike. Do you see a big similarity between this question and PT 38 section 1 Question #10. It's on the layout of the keyboards for computers and typewriters.

Check it out here:

post3091.html

Do you think A only gets at the "What?" - serving to act as a clarification for a premise - while B gets at the "Why?"

Let me know what you think when you have time to compare and contrast them. It's an interesting question, and definitely one that caused me pause which is never fun this early on in the section.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

Sorry for the delayed response -- that's a very interesting question --

And I definitely agree that there is a lot in common between these seemingly very different questions.

Let's start w/the assumptions in the arguments --

For this question, there is an underlying assumption about all patients having the same needs.

For the keyboard question, there is an assumption that if there was some reason for the keyboard to be designed a certain way, and that reason went away, the design of the keyboard would have to change.

I think the commonality is an assumption about the "sameness" of the underlying base (in the first q, assuming commonality among patients, in 2nd, assuming commonality over time -- that is, what made the design useful in the first place should still contribute to purpose of design today). It's also true that in both questions this assumption about the commonality of the base is really difficult to see.

And, as you and Matt have been eloquently discussing, both these questions have tempting wrong answers that focus more on the "What" and not the "Why."

Thanks for all your input on the forums geverett -- I imagine your studies are going very well(!) -- and sorry for the delay. Hope this was helpful, and please follow up if you want to further the discussion.

[sukim764]

"Yet the specialists state that drugs are a necessary part of the treatment of all patients who receive them for back muscle injuries."

Reading Mike Kim's explanation, I'm convinced of the answer choice B. However, I wanted to point out that the wording of the last sentence seemed a bit confusing, at least to me.

"How come specialists state drugs are necessary for some patients, when patients who take drugs and have physical therapy don't do any better than those who do just physical therapy?"

Instead of this, I thought the specialists were saying that drugs are necessary for ALL patients with back muscle injuries...

A difficult question very on in the section..

[patrice.antoine]

What of (C)? I chose this answer assuming that the purpose of the therapy is to heal back injuries and that combining physical therapy with drugs increases that chance of being cured. "What specialist wouldn't want to see their patient cured?" was my reasoning.

[snoopy]

What of (C)? I chose this answer assuming that the purpose of the therapy is to heal back injuries and that combining physical therapy with drugs increases that chance of being cured. "What specialist wouldn't want to see their patient cured?" was my reasoning.

C is incorrect for a number of reasons. If you tell me, "well, some back muscle injuries completely healed with drugs and physical therapy," I would respond, "That doesn't explain how drugs are necessary for patients who have back muscle injuries even though treatment A (drugs and physical therapy combo) does as well as treatment B (physical therapy alone)." We're trying to understand why drugs are necessary. The key is the "all patients who receive them [drugs]" in the last sentence.

Maybe those patients had more severe back muscle injuries which called for drugs. Maybe those with less severe back muscle injuries don't need drugs.