PrepTest 150, Section 2, Question 5
Lawyer: In a risky surgical procedure that is(61 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(10 more words not shown)
- AAny time a(16 more words not shown)
- BIf a medical(28 more words not shown)
- COne is guilty(15 more words not shown)
- DDeliberately bringing about(17 more words not shown)
- EIntentionally stopping a(17 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The patient agreed to take the risk. Doesn't that matter?
Intentionally stopping someone's heart and brain functions sounds alarming. But we are describing a medical procedure, with informed consent and an attempt to restore normal function afterward. We can imagine someone accepting a dangerous treatment because it offers a benefit worth the risk. That is very different from assuming the doctors wanted the patient to die.
So I have questions about the lawyer's conclusion. Does consent change the analysis? Does the medical purpose matter? The passage hasn't given us a rule that makes the doctors guilty of manslaughter if their attempt to restore those functions fails.
What we’re looking for
The question asks us to support the lawyer, though. We need a principle defining manslaughter in a way that covers the stated facts: the stopping is deliberate, and in the situation described by the conclusion it becomes permanent. Our own reaction to the procedure doesn't supply that rule; we have to find it in the answers.
Working the answers
- A
Being chargeable isn't the same as being guilty. A says a medical team could face a manslaughter charge whenever a procedure could cause death. But the lawyer says the team is technically guilty if the functions don't resume. The possibility of an accusation doesn't establish that the accusation is correct.
- B
This makes the patient's death a requirement for guilt in the specified high-risk procedure. It doesn't say death is enough to establish guilt. A patient could die while the doctors fail some other requirement for manslaughter. Also, the passage calls the procedure risky without establishing this answer's very high risk. B doesn't give the needed rule that makes the described outcome manslaughter.
- C
This requires an intention to cause irreversible loss. We are told the doctors intend to stop the functions, then try to restore them. Those facts don't establish that they intend the stopping to be permanent. C adds a requirement the lawyer hasn't shown is met; it doesn't justify guilt merely from deliberate stopping followed by a failure to resume. We needn't claim this answer proves innocence to see why it doesn't establish guilt.
- DCorrect
Under this principle, deliberately stopping someone's life functions is manslaughter exactly when that stopping is permanent. The doctors deliberately stop the functions, and the lawyer's conclusion concerns the case in which those functions never resume. That meets the rule. Notice what must be intentional: bringing about the stopping, not making the stopping permanent. D therefore supplies the connection without requiring proof that the doctors meant to cause an irreversible death.
- E
The exception has two parts: the patient agrees, and the patient might die without treatment. We know the first, but not the second. The procedure's own risk doesn't tell us what would happen without it. Because we don't know whether the full exception applies, E doesn't settle whether this case falls under its manslaughter rule. Consent alone isn't enough to invoke the exception, and we also can't assume the exception is absent merely to make the lawyer's conclusion follow.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.