PrepTest 140, Section 1, Question 7
Ethicist: Robert Gillette has argued that because a(55 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(9 more words not shown)
- AGillette's argument wrongly(13 more words not shown)
- BDeciphering the genetic(10 more words not shown)
- CBecause of its(9 more words not shown)
- DGillette's claim that(15 more words not shown)
- EGillette's argument is(10 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Curing thousands of disorders would be a major benefit. Does that settle whether gaining this knowledge would benefit humanity overall?
The ethicist says Gillette has left possible harm out of the calculation. Imagine genetic information being used to prevent certain people from having children because they carry an unwanted trait. That's a possible misuse to consider, not something we know would happen. The point is that discovering useful information and making good use of it aren't automatically the same thing.
Perhaps those harms could be prevented while the benefits were preserved. The ethicist doesn't settle that either. The criticism is narrower: Gillette's argument hasn't considered the possibility that the harm could outweigh the good.
What we’re looking for
We're asked for the ethicist's conclusion, so keep the two speakers separate. Gillette says the knowledge will certainly benefit humanity. The ethicist's point is that Gillette hasn't made a convincing case. The possible harm explains why the ethicist finds the argument unpersuasive; it isn't a separate recommendation to stop the research.
Working the answers
- A
The ethicist doesn't challenge the claim that the knowledge would allow cures. We can accept that benefit and still ask whether there are greater harms. A attacks a premise the ethicist leaves in place.
- B
This is the possible downside offered as the reason Gillette's argument is unconvincing. Ask what the ethicist wants us to conclude from that concern: Gillette hasn't adequately supported the promised overall benefit. B gives the support for that assessment rather than the assessment itself.
- C
An unconvincing argument for research doesn't establish that the research shouldn't be conducted. A better argument might address the risks, or safeguards might prevent them. The ethicist criticizes Gillette's reasoning without making this policy recommendation.
- D
Again, the criticism isn't that Gillette exaggerates the number of disorders that could be cured. It's that listing benefits leaves possible harms unexamined. D puts the objection on the wrong claim.
- ECorrect
Gillette's argument is unconvincing because it ignores possible consequences of the research. Those consequences are the harms that could outweigh the benefits. This identifies the ethicist's main assessment and accurately connects it with the reason given, without claiming that Gillette's conclusion must be false.
More Role/Main Point questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Role/Main Point questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.