LSAT Explanation PT 31, S3, Q14: Ethicist: Both ASA and TPA are

LSAT Question Stem

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the conclusion of the ethicist's argument? 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Main Conclusion question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is C. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

First, let's analyze the argument in the passage. The ethicist is discussing two clot-dissolving agents, ASA and TPA, and their effectiveness in saving lives in postoperative cardiac patients. The passage states that TPA, the more expensive agent, would save at most two more lives than ASA out of every 50 cardiac patients. However, the ethicist also considers the emotional impact on the relatives of patients who die because they were given the less expensive medicine (ASA). The structure of the argument is as follows:

Premise 1: TPA would save at most two more lives than ASA out of every 50 cardiac patients.

Premise 2: Relatives of patients who die due to receiving ASA would be particularly grieved.

Conclusion: The extra expense of TPA cannot be weighed simply against the few additional lives saved.

Now, let's discuss the question type and what it's asking us to do. This is a Main Conclusion question, which means we need to identify the conclusion of the ethicist's argument from the answer choices.

a) ASA should never be given to postoperative cardiac patients in place of TPA.

This answer choice is too strong and not supported by the passage. The ethicist does not argue that ASA should never be used, but rather that the financial savings should be weighed against other considerations. Therefore, this choice is incorrect.

b) TPA is a slightly more effective clot-dissolving agent than ASA.

While this statement is true according to the passage, it is a premise, not the conclusion of the argument. The conclusion should be supported by the premises, and this statement is used to support the main conclusion. Thus, this choice is incorrect.

c) The extra expense of TPA cannot be weighed simply against the few additional lives saved.

This answer choice accurately captures the conclusion of the ethicist's argument. The ethicist argues that the financial savings of using ASA should be weighed against other considerations, such as the emotional impact on relatives. This choice is the correct answer.

d) ASA is a less expensive clot-dissolving agent than TPA.

While this statement is true according to the passage, it is a premise, not the conclusion of the argument. The conclusion should be supported by the premises, and this statement is used to support the main conclusion. Thus, this choice is incorrect.

e) Relatives of a patient who has died grieve more if the patient received ASA rather than TPA.

This statement is a premise in the argument that supports the main conclusion. It is not the main conclusion itself. The main conclusion should be a statement that is supported by the premises, and this statement is used to support the main conclusion. Therefore, this choice is incorrect.

In conclusion, the correct answer is choice C, as it accurately expresses the conclusion of the ethicist's argument. The other answer choices are either premises or unrelated statements and do not capture the main conclusion of the argument.