Debbie attempts to counter Carl’s

Answer choices

1. A

   Doesn't Refute Premise3% picked this

   showing that one of the claims on which Carl bases his

   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%
2. B

   Correct82% picked this

   pointing out a relevant difference to undermine an analogy on which Carl

   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%
3. C

   Bad Evidence Match2% picked this

   claiming that Carl’s argument should be rejected because it is based on an appeal to sentimentality rather

   "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%
4. D

   Opposite11% picked this

   drawing an analogy that illustrates a major flaw in

   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%
5. E

   Out of Scope2% picked this

   offering a specific example to demonstrate that Carl’s argument is based on a claim that can be

   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%