PrepTest 102, Section 3, Question 11
Carl: Researchers who perform operations on animals for(111 more words not shown)
Debbie attempts to counter Carl's(2 more words not shown)
- Ashowing that one(11 more words not shown)
- Bpointing out a(12 more words not shown)
- Cclaiming that Carl's(18 more words not shown)
- Ddrawing an analogy(8 more words not shown)
- Eoffering a specific(18 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A patient who can understand the explanation gets to make a choice. An experimental animal doesn't make that same choice.
That is the difference Carl's comparison makes me think about. Carl describes special pain-planning requirements for animal experiments, notes their absence for humans, and takes the difference as evidence that lawmakers care less about people. But equal concern needn't require an identical procedure when the subjects have different ways to protect their interests. Debbie points out that a person can be told about the pain and decide whether to have the operation.
What we’re looking for
I would still ask Debbie about infants or anyone unable to understand and make that decision. Her reply may leave important cases uncovered. But this question asks what she does in responding to Carl. She introduces a relevant difference between the two groups he compares. We can describe that move without treating her claim about all humans as beyond criticism.
Working the answers
- A
Debbie doesn't deny Carl's statements about which procedures require pain protocols. She could accept those legal facts and still disagree about what they show concerning lawmakers' concern. Her reply adds a difference between human and animal patients rather than declaring one of Carl's supporting claims false.
- BCorrect
Carl's analogy moves from protection for experimental animals to a claim that equally concerned lawmakers would require the same protection for human patients. Debbie points to informed choice: a person can hear what pain to expect and decline the surgery. That provides a reason the two situations might warrant different procedures.
Whether her response covers every human patient is a further question. For identifying her method, the important point is that she attacks the comparison by distinguishing its two sides.
- C
Debbie doesn't accuse Carl of being sentimental or argue that his reasoning should be dismissed because it appeals to emotion. She supplies a specific difference concerning the patient's ability to decide. We should describe that factual response rather than invent a criticism of Carl's emotional approach.
- D
Debbie challenges Carl's analogy; she doesn't introduce another analogy of her own. A new comparison might involve some third setting meant to expose the same problem. Instead, she stays with the human-and-animal comparison and identifies a difference inside it.
- E
Debbie doesn't offer a particular patient's case or claim that Carl's argument cannot be checked. Her statement concerns what a person facing surgery can be told and decide. Nothing in the reply turns on Carl's claim being impossible either to confirm or to disprove.
More Strategy of Argument questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strategy of Argument questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.