PrepTest 159, Section 1, Question 17
Essayist: It would be wrong to defend current(59 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(8 more words not shown)
- APossessing information about(16 more words not shown)
- BNo transaction can(15 more words not shown)
- CAnyone who acts(12 more words not shown)
- DThere is nothing(9 more words not shown)
- EPeople should be(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
“Apprised of” means informed about. These volunteers have been told the risks and are paid for taking them. So the essayist's objection can't simply be that no one explained the danger.
The distinction the essayist draws is between a free choice and a choice made under pressure. A person could understand what a test involves and still feel unable to turn it down. Knowing the consequences and freely choosing to face them are different issues.
What we’re looking for
My first question is whether these particular volunteers are under duress. If they are, I can see how the essayist's concern applies. But the conclusion is narrower than “All these tests are wrong.” It says the stated facts are insufficient to defend the procedures. For the assumption question, look for something needed to keep that objection open, rather than demand proof that every volunteer is actually being coerced.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Being informed about possible consequences doesn't guarantee a free choice. The essayist needs that distinction because these volunteers are informed. If information automatically ensured freedom, the stated facts would place the volunteers in the very situation the essayist says makes paying them acceptable.
A blocks that response. The volunteers' knowledge leaves room for duress, so merely pointing to their informed participation and compensation doesn't settle the essayist's concern. This is weaker than establishing actual duress, but that is appropriate: we're identifying an assumption needed for the criticism, not proving the whole testing program immoral.
- B
No transaction at all? The essayist challenges a particular defense of medication testing. That doesn't require a rule against justifying any voluntary transaction. A simple voluntary exchange of trading cards, for example, need not raise the same concern. B expands the claim well beyond this argument.
- C
Duress can prevent a choice from being free without being the only possible obstacle to complete freedom. C claims that every unfree action involves externally imposed duress. The essayist doesn't need that exhaustive explanation; the argument only needs the possibility of duress to matter here.
- D
This evaluates the person who accepts money for taking a risk. The argument evaluates the defense offered for the testing procedures and the payment arrangement. We can question whether that defense works without needing to pronounce all acceptance of payment for risk morally acceptable.
- E
Allowing every freely chosen action is much broader than saying it isn't wrong to pay people when they freely choose what they're doing. The essayist doesn't need a universal permission rule for all actions. E also doesn't address whether these informed volunteers' choices are free.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.