PrepTest 158, Section 3, Question 7
Ethicist: This hospital's ethics code states that hospital(61 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(8 more words not shown)
- ADr. Faris was(9 more words not shown)
- BA committee at(11 more words not shown)
- CMedication A is(17 more words not shown)
- DSeveral other members(13 more words not shown)
- EDr. Faris knew(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What if the medication helps the patient sleep without directly inducing sleep?
The rule says staff must not deceive patients. Fine. But before accusing Dr. Faris of breaking it, we need to establish that the statement about helping the patient sleep was deceptive. Having no known sleep-inducing properties doesn't settle that.
Suppose pain is keeping the patient awake. A pain reliever could remove that obstacle, allowing the patient to sleep. The medication wouldn't have to be a sleeping pill for “This will help you sleep” to be an honest description of what it can do.
What we’re looking for
That's the defense I'd look for in this weaken question. The patient's improved sleep alone doesn't establish why it improved, but a way for medication A to help indirectly would undermine the accusation of deception.
Working the answers
- A
Knowing the medication has no known sleep-inducing properties doesn't help defend the doctor. It might make the accusation seem stronger if we assume that direct sleep induction is the only way it could help. But that is precisely the assumption we're questioning. A neither supplies an indirect benefit nor establishes that the doctor's statement was necessarily a lie.
- B
Possible future changes to the code don't determine whether the doctor violated the current code. We need to evaluate the statement and treatment under the rule we were given. A committee considering revisions doesn't show that Dr. Faris complied with that rule.
- CCorrect
This gives the pain-relief explanation we wanted. The medication can reduce discomfort, and that reduction can allow the patient to sleep. The doctor's claim was that it would help the patient sleep, not that it would directly induce sleep.
So the absence of sleep-inducing properties doesn't establish deception. C doesn't tell us everything the doctor knew, but it supplies a way the statement could be accurate and makes the ethicist's confident accusation much less convincing.
- D
Other staff prescribing the medication doesn't establish that Dr. Faris told the truth. We aren't even told what those staff members said to their patients. If a statement were deceptive, others making the same statement wouldn't excuse it. What matters is whether this medication could help in the way Dr. Faris claimed.
- E
This rules out other sleep-inducing medications as an explanation, but the accusation concerns what Dr. Faris said about medication A. E doesn't tell us whether A could help the patient sleep indirectly. Knowing what other drugs the patient wasn't taking leaves that central question unanswered.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.