PrepTest 115, Section 2, Question 19
Jeff: Proposed regulations concerning the use of animals(108 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(11 more words not shown)
- ARegulations on the(22 more words not shown)
- BWhatever means are(20 more words not shown)
- COnly those experiments(13 more words not shown)
- DScientists who perform(17 more words not shown)
- EScientific experimentation should(11 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
If the reason to protect dogs and horses is that they can feel pain, why stop with dogs and horses? Jeff points out that all mammals have that capacity. That makes extending the protection sound reasonable.
But does being able to feel pain settle the policy? Suppose an experiment could help develop a treatment that saves human lives. Someone might accept the evidence about animal pain and still think that benefit justified certain experiments. Jeff needs a rule explaining why the capacity for pain is enough to prohibit experimentation.
Miranda takes a different route. Her concern is consent: nonhuman animals cannot consent, and she argues that experimenting on them undermines respect for life. The two speakers favor broader protection, but they give different reasons and propose different scopes. Jeff discusses all mammals; Miranda discusses all nonhuman animals.
What we’re looking for
The question asks for a principle supporting Jeff. So set Miranda's consent argument aside and connect Jeff's own evidence to his conclusion: if a creature can feel pain, scientific experimentation on it should be prohibited. That rule would let the finding about all mammals support his proposed ban.
Working the answers
- A
This puts the experimenters' feelings at the center of the regulations. Jeff's reason concerns the animals' capacity for pain. Respecting a researcher's feelings doesn't establish whether an experiment on a mammal should be prohibited.
- B
We already have research telling us that all mammals can feel pain. Whether researchers should use the same test for different animals doesn't connect that fact to a ban. The missing step is what we should prohibit once we know an animal can feel pain, not how to investigate that capacity.
- C
This would restrict a ban to experiments known to cause pain. Jeff wants to prohibit all experimentation on mammals because they are capable of feeling pain. An experiment could involve an animal with that capacity without itself causing pain. C would therefore withhold support for part of the very ban Jeff proposes.
- D
Feeling equal empathy is different from adopting a prohibition. Scientists might empathize with every mammal and still think some experiments were justified by their benefits. The existing proposal mentions species humans empathize with, which makes D tempting, but saying scientists should feel more empathy doesn't establish that all experimentation on mammals should be banned. We need the policy connection.
- ECorrect
Every mammal can feel pain, and this principle prohibits scientific experimentation on any creature with that capacity. Put those statements together and the ban covers every mammal, exactly as Jeff concludes.
Don't reject this just because it says creatures instead of mammals. Mammals are creatures. The rule can cover a broader group and still support the conclusion about mammals. We are supplying a principle that establishes Jeff's result, not looking for a rule that applies exclusively to his chosen group.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.