Despite improvements in treatment for asthma, the death rate from this disease has doubled during the past decade fro...

shunhe April 27, 2020

Hi @joaquin-acuna,

Thanks for the question! Notice that the question asks us for an assumption on which the argument depends; this is a necessary assumption question, and so if the argument can still hold without a given assumption, then that answer choice can’t be the answer.

Now, we’re told in the argument basically that treatments for asthma have gotten better, but the death rate has doubled. The author rules out urban pollution and better recording of deaths, and then concludes that it has to be because of the use of bronchial inhalers.

Now let’s take a look at (C), which is a very tempting answer choice. (C) tells us that bronchial inhalers are unsafe, even when used properly. Let’s use the negation technique on this: could it be true that bronchial inhalers are safe, even when used properly, but that the argument in the passage still holds?

The answer to this question is yes, and it is a very nuanced answer indeed. (C) is talking about the inherent safety/unsafety of bronchial inhalers. However, the proper usage of bronchial inhalers may still be safe, but lead to unsafe activities, and so still cause increased deaths without themselves being unsafe. This possibility is mentioned in the previous question on this test (Oct 1991 LSAT, section #1, question #22) in answer choice (D). It could be the case that bronchial inhalers temporarily relieve the symptoms of asthma, and so encourage sufferers to avoid more beneficial measurers. Thus, they would still in this case themselves be safe, but still cause increased deaths. And so (C) isn’t a necessary assumption of the argument, and (C) is incorrect.

Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.