PrepTest 157, Section 2, Question 25
Columnist: Consent forms filled out by subjects prior(73 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the columnist's(12 more words not shown)
- Ainfers that two(18 more words not shown)
- Buses as evidence(20 more words not shown)
- Cuses evidence drawn(9 more words not shown)
- Dtakes for granted(26 more words not shown)
- Edraws a conclusion(15 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
You can accept the terms and still resent the outcome.
Imagine someone who is seriously ill and wants a chance to try a promising experimental treatment. To participate in a particular study, the person agrees to the risk of receiving something ineffective. That choice could make sense to the patient even if they dislike the terms. Accepting a chance at a benefit doesn't require being pleased with every possible result.
The consent forms therefore don't settle the question the columnist wants to settle. They show willingness to accept a risk before participating. Why should that cast doubt on people resenting a placebo or an ineffective medicine? We don't have to assume that the patients are terminally ill or have no other options to see the distinction between agreeing and feeling happy about the agreement.
What we’re looking for
For the flaw question, I'd look for that missing connection: accepting the risk doesn't necessarily rule out resentment. The columnist needs a reason to move from the forms to a claim about the subjects' feelings.
Working the answers
- A
The columnist doesn't list many instances in which acceptance and resentment occur together and then infer an association. The argument uses acceptance as a reason to doubt resentment. A describes a different use of evidence and a different relationship between the two things.
- B
The subjects aren't being consulted as experts on the scientific value of placebos. Their forms are evidence about accepting a risk, and the conclusion concerns their feelings about the outcome. A lack of scientific expertise wouldn't prevent someone from accepting a risk or resenting an ineffective treatment. B challenges a qualification the argument doesn't rely on.
- C
Nothing identifies a reason the subjects whose forms are considered are an unrepresentative sample. That doesn't guarantee the sample is perfect; it means the passage hasn't supplied the sampling defect this answer describes. Even a representative set of forms accepting the risk could fail to show whether the subjects resent the eventual outcome.
- DCorrect
This takes a different route from my initial objection. I was thinking that someone could accept the terms and resent them at the same time. D points out that the person's attitude could change.
A subject might begin the trial optimistic and comfortable with the risk. Later, after receiving an ineffective substance, the subject might feel disappointed or resentful. The earlier consent would remain a real fact, but it wouldn't accurately describe the later attitude. The columnist treats the pretrial forms as evidence against resentment after the outcome without accounting for that possible change. That's a direct reason the evidence doesn't settle what the subjects later feel.
- E
The conclusion concerns whether subjects feel resentment. It doesn't say that giving placebos is morally right or wrong, or that the subjects ought to feel a particular way. The people whose claim is challenged happen to be medical ethicists, but their title doesn't turn this particular claim about feelings into a moral judgment.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.