PrepTest 118, Section 1, Question 14
Physician: In order to investigate diseases caused by(80 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(10 more words not shown)
- AThe resources expended(26 more words not shown)
- BAbout 10,000 children(10 more words not shown)
- CObtaining informed consent(16 more words not shown)
- DAlthough hormonal imbalances(12 more words not shown)
- EThe long-term effects(10 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
We've been given a rule for allowing research. Where have we shown that this study fails it? The proposed study would give synthetic HGH to children whose pituitary glands don't produce typical amounts. I'd want to know whether that synthetic version differs in any important way from the hormone their bodies produce. But a question about it isn't yet evidence that the study should be prohibited.
The physician's rule requires two things: the study must be likely to reveal important information about a medical condition, and it must be known to pose only minimal risk. The conclusion rejects the study without establishing which requirement it fails.
What we’re looking for
To strengthen that conclusion, we could show that the study is unlikely to teach us anything important about the condition. Or we could challenge its safety. My first thought is evidence that giving the hormone would be too risky. Either route could help explain why the study shouldn't pass the stated test.
Working the answers
- A
A more valuable use of the money isn't one of the physician's stated requirements. This study could reveal important information while posing only minimal risk, even if another study addressed a more serious disease. A introduces a comparison between competing projects instead of showing that this project fails the rule.
- B
This is reassuring evidence about safety, not a reason to prohibit the study. No obvious side effects in 10,000 children wouldn't prove that every possible risk is minimal, but it pushes against the claim that administering the hormone is a reason to reject the proposal.
- C
Informed consent could be a separate concern about research, but the physician hasn't made it part of this argument's test. We need support tied to important medical information or known minimal risk. We shouldn't replace the stated rule with another one, however important that other rule might be in a different discussion.
- D
The study aims to investigate diseases caused by hormonal imbalances. Those diseases can still be medical conditions even if the imbalances themselves aren't classified that way. Learning about a cause could reveal important information about the resulting disease. D doesn't establish that the proposed study lacks the required medical value.
- ECorrect
The safety requirement is not merely that the study might turn out to be safe. Its risk must be known to be minimal. Untested, unknown long-term effects give us a reason to doubt that this requirement has been met.
This doesn't prove that synthetic HGH will cause serious harm. It supports rejecting the proposed study by questioning the knowledge of safety that the physician's rule demands. The distinction between unknown effects and demonstrated danger matters: we don't need to pretend E has established the latter.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.