PrepTest 119, Section 3, Question 20
Scientist: Genetic engineering has aided new developments in(68 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(9 more words not shown)
- AThe manipulation of(8 more words not shown)
- BAnything that is(10 more words not shown)
- CThe manipulation of(12 more words not shown)
- DThe manipulation of(14 more words not shown)
- EScience can accomplish(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
We've done it for thousands of years. Does that make it ethical?
The scientist points to selective breeding: people choose organisms with desired traits and breed them. Think of growers repeatedly selecting plants with more of a useful feature. Over generations, their choices can change the crop. That gives us a way to understand the comparison without treating traditional breeding and direct laboratory manipulation as identical techniques.
I have two questions. First, are the differences between the old and new methods relevant to whether they're ethical? Calling both genetic engineering doesn't settle that. Second, why assume selective breeding is ethical in the first place? A practice's long history doesn't establish that it is acceptable.
What we’re looking for
The required-assumption question could address either missing connection. For the scientist to use selective breeding as a defense, the argument at least needs that example to be acceptable. If selective breeding were unethical too, pointing out that genetic engineering resembles it would do nothing to answer the critics.
Working the answers
- A
Never is broader than what this defense needs. The scientist rejects the idea that manipulating genetic codes makes genetic engineering unethical as such. That needn't mean every possible manipulation, in every situation and for every purpose, is ethical. The argument depends on the acceptability of its comparison case, not a blanket approval of every use.
- B
The example isn't simply something nature accomplishes without human intervention. It involves people choosing which animals to breed. Nor does the argument need a general rule approving anything science can reproduce from nature. B supplies a much broader defense than the comparison the scientist actually offers.
- CCorrect
The argument needs selective breeding for desired traits to be ethically acceptable. Otherwise, the supposedly reassuring example would be another instance of the very problem the critics allege.
C answers our second objection: the scientist takes the acceptability of that longstanding practice for granted. It doesn't resolve every concern about comparing different methods. A required assumption can support an essential part of the reasoning without making the whole argument conclusive.
- D
Important for survival and ethically acceptable are different claims. A practice could be ethical without being needed for human survival. And if it were important for survival, we'd still need some rule connecting that importance to ethical permission. The scientist doesn't depend on this claim to make the comparison.
- E
This gives an expansive defense of science: everything it can do is natural in some sense, and nothing natural is unethical. The scientist needn't accept either universal claim. The argument could regard some natural things as unethical while relying on this particular breeding practice as acceptable. A rule broad enough to defend the conclusion isn't automatically something the argument requires.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.