June 1996 LSAT Section 2 Question 18

In the past decade, a decreasing percentage of money spent on treating disease X went to pay for standard methods of ...

Eugene on July 8, 2023

Why E and not D?

The conclusion is about about a reduction in the amount of money being spent on effective treatments, which the passage identifies as the standard treatment. The nonstandard treatment is deemed ineffective and if more money has been spent on that in the last decade, wouldn't that justify the conclusion?

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

Emil-Kunkin on July 20, 2023

Hi, the author confuses percentages and absolutes in the argument. While the percent of money spent on the standard has fallen, it's possible that the absolute amount has risen. Maybe in the past we spend 1 million on standard and 0 on nonstandard, while now we spend 1.1 million on standard and 2 million on nonstandard. In this case the percentage fell from 100 to about 35, even though the total increased by 100k. The fact that we spent more on nonstandard doesn't guarantee that we also didn't spend more on standard as well, as long as the spend on standard increase at a slower rate than that of the spend on nonstandard.

E however guarnetees that the amount fell in dollar terms.