Please, explain
Dr. Schilling: Those who advocate replacing my country's private health insurance system with nationalized health insurance because of the rising costs of medical care fail to consider the high human costs that consumers pay in countries with nationalized insurance: access to high-technology medicine is restricted and kidney transplants and open-heart surgery is rationed. People are denied their right to treatments they want and need.
Dr. Laforte: Your country's reliance on private health insurance denies access even to basic, conventional medicine to the many people who cannot afford adequate health coverage. With nationalized insurance, rich and poor have equal access to life-saving medical procedures, and people's right to decent medical treatment regardless of income is not violated.
Dr. Schilling's and Dr. Laforte's statements provide the most support for holding that they would disagree about the truth of which one of the following?
(A) People's rights are violated less when they are denied an available medical treatment they need because they lack the means to pay for it than when they are denied such treatment on noneconomic grounds.
(B) Where health insurance is provided by private insurance companies, people who are wealthy generally receive better health care than do people who are unable to afford health insurance.
(C) In countries that rely primarily on private health insurance to pay for medical costs, most people who would benefit from a kidney transplant receive one.
(D) In countries with nationalized health insurance, no one who needs a familiar medical treatment in order to stay alive is denied that treatment.
(E) Anyone who wants a particular medical treatment has a right to receive that treatment.

CR / LSAT / Source: Aristotle CR Test bank #79

The Answer is A:

Reason:

Schilling and Laforte certainly agree about that everybodu shoud get the medical assistance when they need. The point of contetion is which system provides it better.

Schilling talks about "restricted access" and "rationing" as the weaknesses of the public system.

Laforte dosnot refute it. Instead,he talks about the weaknesses of the private system " denial of even basic health".

So the argument is which is a lesser evil and A traps it.

presumably they want choice (a); i've color-coded the text in order to show the corresponding parts.



the blue part (noneconomic grounds) is schilling's primary objection; the red part (economic grounds / means of payment) is laforte's.
since these perspectives are presented as opposing sides of an argument, it can be assumed that each individual sees his/her point as more important or more valid than the opposing point. (i.e., since the opposing viewpoints are presented in debate form, we can assume that each participant in the debate is aware of the opponent's stance, and has still decided that their position is more correct.)

But wouldnt this option be agreed to by the Dr laforte because he stresses that the basic care equality is more important and mentions that to deny the basic medical care on the basis of the income is absolutely bad.

In addition because this question sounded to be more like a negative main point question. Isnt D a better choice because A mentions a scenario which can be termed as extra information for the argument.

Ron may offer additional insight into this problem if he feels so inclined, but in general you should not expect any help on LSAT questions from MGMAT instructors on this forum. The LSAT plays by different rules than the GMAT, so studying LSAT problems is not likely to help you answer GMAT questions and may even steer you in the wrong direction..

_________________
Tim Sanders
Manhattan GMAT Instructor