PrepTest 129, Section 3, Question 15
Medical ethicist: Assuming there is a reasonable chance(59 more words not shown)
The flawed reasoning in which(16 more words not shown)
- AEven a geological(35 more words not shown)
- BOne is always(39 more words not shown)
- CSomeone born and(44 more words not shown)
- DOne can never(33 more words not shown)
- EAlmost any industrial(27 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Offering an experimental treatment is different from forcing someone to take it. If a seriously ill patient has a reasonable chance of a cure, I can understand making the option available and letting the patient weigh the risks.
The seriousness of the symptoms could matter to that decision. A patient suffering severely from cancer might be willing to take a risk that someone with seasonal sniffles would decline. I might want expert medical advice in either situation, but let's accept the ethicist's premise that patients with extreme symptoms are best able to weigh the risks and benefits.
Why does that make them the only patients who may be offered the option? A patient with moderate symptoms might still reasonably want the choice. Being less well placed than the very best group to assess a treatment does not automatically make it unacceptable to offer that treatment.
What we’re looking for
We need another argument with this same jump. It identifies a particularly qualified group, then treats that advantage as a requirement, excluding people without it from making the relevant judgment or choice.
Working the answers
- A
Geological and economic experts correspond loosely to the particularly qualified patients. But the premise says that even those experts can lose money, and the conclusion warns less knowledgeable investors not to expect success every time. It does not move from superior qualifications to a prohibition on others investing. It concerns whether success is guaranteed, not who is entitled to evaluate an option.
- B
Test-driving improves someone's position to judge a car, which resembles the premise about patients' ability to assess treatment. The conclusion, however, reasons backward from an unsatisfactory outcome to a likely lack of test-driving.
A medical version would say that a treatment turned out badly, so the patient probably had not had extreme symptoms. That is not what the ethicist argues. The ethicist starts with the absence of the preferred qualification and forbids offering the option; B starts with the disappointing outcome and guesses what preceded it.
- CCorrect
Being raised in the country, living abroad, and returning puts someone in an exceptionally good position to judge living there. That matches the extreme-symptom patients being especially able to weigh treatment risks. The conclusion then says someone who has not lived there should not form judgments at all, matching the exclusion of patients without extreme symptoms.
A person who has visited and studied the country could still make an informed assessment, even if the returning resident has a better perspective. Just as a moderately symptomatic patient might still deserve the treatment option, a less exceptionally qualified observer can still be entitled to form a judgment.
- D
This argues that because eliminating every risk is impossible and trying is costly, a reasonable person accepts some risks. It does not identify a group better able to assess a choice and then exclude others from that choice. Its move is from unavoidable risk to accepting some risk.
- E
This has a different problem. Unavoidable environmental effects could vary greatly in severity, so weighing their costs could still help us choose a less damaging development. The argument mistakes the inevitability of some harm for a reason not to evaluate the harm. It lacks the original's move from exceptional qualification to exclusive permission.
More Parallel Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.