Q9 - Last year, pharmaceutical manufacturers

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: The additional promotion caused physicians to be less willing to receive visits by pharm reps.
Evidence: Last year, pharm manufacturers spent way more promoting new drugs (mainly by sending sales reps to visit physicians. But this year each rep only visited 501 physicians on average, whereas the year before this promotion each rep visited 640 physicians on average.

Answer Anticipation:
Let's plug the argument core into our GIVEN THAT evidence, HOW CAN I STILL ARGUE anti-conclusion?" framework, and see if we can think of objections ... "GIVEN THAT visits per rep went from 640 to 501, HOW CAN WE STILL ARGUE that physicians weren't becoming less willing to be visited by pharm reps?"

Hopefully, we recognize this argument as an example of LSAT's longest running TV show: causal arguments. They present a curious fact, the author concludes a causal story to explain that curious fact, and we have to assess whether
OTHER causal stories could be possible
and whether the
AUTHOR'S causal story is plausible.

We either need a different reason the rate fell from 640 to 501 (maybe the reps were so persuasive the first time, they didn't have to make a return visit .... maybe the reps were more successful than in previous years at sealing the deal with a phone call rather than a visit),
or we need to undermine the plausibility that doctor's became less willing to receive visits (doctors had plenty of holes in their schedule ... they speak fondly of sales rep visits ... they sent out thirsty emails whining, "You don't visit me any more ....")

Correct Answer:
A

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) YES! This is an alternate explanation for why the rate went from 640 visits per rep to 501: there were more reps than before (so potentially even MORE visits than the previous year, suggesting physicians were at least as or even MORE willing to receive visits), and reps were encouraged to spend more time with each physician, so a sales rep's individual "case load" was smaller, even though the number of physicians visited and time spent visiting them may have both increased overall.

(B) This somewhat weakens, because it points to a reason why physicians would be WILLING to receive visits. But this answer has little strength compared to (A). In order for this to have more effect, it should describe something that chaned from two years ago to this year. If it said, "last year, as part of the promotion, physicians were told that if they received a visit from the sales rep they would receive lots of free samples", then it would have more compelling impact

(C) If anything this strengthens, by ruling out an alternate explanation. We might have said, "We didn't go from 640 to 501 because physicians were less willing to receive visits. The pharm companies just allocated more of their promotional budget to TV commercials and less to paying sales reps to do physician visits.

(D) This is just like (B), although it has even less clear impact. Mostly, though, just focus on the fact that it's saying something timeless: it's doesn't represent anything ELSE that was different about last year that could inform our understanding of the change from 640 to 501.

(E) Same as (B) and (D), this mentions a timeless fact. It doesn't help us to assess the change from 640 two years ago to 501 last year.

Takeaway/Pattern: Arguments that present any sort of statistic usually end up with the author inferring some causal assumption from those statistics. Here the author assumes that visits per sales rep went down because physicians were shunning them. We can undermine that assumption by thinking about other possible reasons why the visits per sales rep went down: more sales reps, longer appointments, less marketing budget being spent on physician outreach, greater density of physicians per office ... etc.

#officialexplanation

[JinZ551]

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: The additional promotion caused physicians to be less willing to receive visits by pharm reps.
Evidence: Last year, pharm manufacturers spent way more promoting new drugs (mainly by sending sales reps to visit physicians. But this year each rep only visited 501 physicians on average, whereas the year before this promotion each rep visited 640 physicians on average.



#officialexplanation

The number here in the stimulus does not necessarily mean the number of physicians they visit, right? Just the number of average VISITS each representative have, right? They can spend 501 visits to just 250 physicians, correcr?

[JinZ551]

Question Type:
Weaken


(C) If anything this strengthens, by ruling out an alternate explanation. We might have said, "We didn't go from 640 to 501 because physicians were less willing to receive visits. The pharm companies just allocated more of their promotional budget to TV commercials and less to paying sales reps to do physician visits.



#officialexplanation

But the stimulus says: "pharm manufacturers increased the amount of money they spent promoting new drugs, which they do mainly by sending sales reps to visit physicians..."
does it mean that they spend more money sending sales reps for visits?