Logical Reasoning

PT102 · S3 · Q11 Debbie attempts to counter Carl’s

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Carl: Researchers who perform operations on animals for experimental purposes are legally required to complete detailed pain protocols indicating whether the animals will be at risk of pain and, if so, what steps will be taken to minimize or alleviate it.

Carl

When researchers operate on animals, they're legally required to fill out pain protocols, but not so for humans. If lawmakers cared as much about humans as they seem to about animals, there would be pain protocols for humans too.

Debbie

For humans, the doctor just tells you what pain you can expect, and then you get to decide whether or not you want to authorize the operation. So pain protocols aren't necessary for humans.

Evaluate

Debbie seems to be countering Carl's argument by saying,

Goal

Look for something like, , or

11.

Debbie attempts to counter Carl's argument by

  1. showing that one of the

    Doesn't Refute Premise

    Most Method questions involving 2-speakers has a trap answer saying that the 2nd person "denied the evidence" of the 1st person. We know that on LSAT, denying the evidence (almost) never happens. Debbie didn't deny any of Carl's premises. She pushes back against his conclusion by showing a salient difference between operating on humans vs. animals, but she doesn't object to his evidence (the claims on which he bases his conclusion).

    3% picked this

  2. Correct

    pointing out a relevant difference

    Why this is right

    Carl's is attempting to argue by analogy, in which you say "because A and B are similar in this way, they should also be similar in that way". He's saying, "if humans and animals are similar in terms of lawmakers' concern for them, then they should be similar in terms of both having pain protocol requirements before operating on them." Debbie points out a relevant difference --- with humans, you can explain the pain and get them to consent or refuse; with animals, you can't explain the pain and get their consent, so you have to manage the liberties you're taking with them responsibly via pain protocols. It's definitely a little weird to me to hear this answer choice say that Carl bases his conclusion on an analogy, because "analogy" makes us think "sameness", and it seems like Carl's conclusion is really based on "different-ness". Carl is mad that animals get pain protocols but humans don't (they get treated differently). But we can make the language of this answer choice work, because there are two similarities in Carl's argument: - both animals and humans are being operated on - both animals and humans are being equally cared about by lawmakers (Carl's conclusion is conditioned on this hypothetical idea)

    Skill tested: Method · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    82% picked this

  3. claiming that Carl’s argument should

    Bad Evidence Match

    "Claiming X because of Y" means that X is the conclusion and Y is the evidence. Was Debbie's conclusion that "Carl's argument should be rejected"? Yeah, we can probably live with that, since her conclusion is pretty diametrically opposed to his. Was Debbie's evidence saying, "Carl, you're not using any reasoned principles; you're just appealing to people's emotions?" Not at all. Her evidence was "Humans, unlike animals, can be informed about the pain risks of an operation and choose to decline having it done."

    2% picked this

  4. drawing an analogy that illustrates

    Opposite

    Debbie, in order to illustrate Carl's flaw, is drawing a distinction, which is basically the opposite of an analogy. She is showing that the case of operating on animals and on humans is disanalogous because humans, unlike animals, have the capacity to provide informed consent.

    11% picked this

  5. offering a specific example to

    Out of Scope

    Out of Scope: specific example Out of Scope: unverifiable evidence Debbie doesn't offer any specific examples (that would have sounded like, "When my aunt got her spinal cord operated on, the doctor told her what to expect and asked for her approval"). And Debbie doesn't say that any of Carl's evidence is hopelessly private/subjective/speculative and cannot be confirmed nor disproved.

    2% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free