PrepTest 122, Section 4, Question 18
A physician has a duty to see to(64 more words not shown)
The conclusion drawn above follows(9 more words not shown)
- AAll persons have(13 more words not shown)
- BSome actions are(8 more words not shown)
- CBecause only persons(7 more words not shown)
- DA person's basic(5 more words not shown)
- EIn medicine, the(11 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Suppose a doctor thinks telling a patient frightening news would make the patient's condition worse. The doctor wants to protect the patient's health, but the patient has a right to know what's happening. Which consideration wins?
The author chooses the right to information. Calling it a basic right helps explain that position, but can a basic right ever be overridden? And if the alternative risks treating someone as an object, why must that risk always take priority over protecting their health? We need a rule that settles the conflict, not just a description of the competing concerns.
What we’re looking for
The question asks for an assumption that makes the conclusion follow. A firm rule protecting basic rights would do it: they must never be violated. Once we add that, the doctor cannot withhold information in violation of this right, even when the duty to protect health points the other way.
Working the answers
- A
The right to accept or reject a procedure isn't the same as the right to receive negative findings. A patient might be owed information even when no procedure is being proposed. Also, merely adding another right doesn't tell us how to resolve the conflict between this informational right and the physician's duty.
- B
Here “right” means morally correct, not a person's entitlement to information. More importantly, saying some actions are correct regardless of consequences doesn't identify this action as one of them. We need a rule that settles the particular conflict, and B leaves it open.
- C
We already have a person with a right. Learning that objects don't have rights doesn't establish whether the person's right may ever be overridden. C classifies who has rights without telling the doctor which consideration should prevail.
- DCorrect
The passage identifies the patient's informational right as basic. If basic rights should never be violated, then the duty to promote health can't justify violating that right. D directly resolves the conflict in the direction the author recommends. It's a broad rule, but this task allows us to assume it and asks whether it is enough to establish the conclusion.
- E
Stronger than most other rights leaves possible exceptions. More fundamentally, the competing consideration here is a doctor's duty, not another patient right. Even if the right to information outranked most rights, E would leave its priority over the duty to protect health unsettled. It therefore doesn't guarantee the conclusion.
More Sufficient Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Sufficient Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.