Logical Reasoning

PT118 · S1 · Q14 Physician: In order to investigate

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

Physician: In order to investigate diseases caused by hormonal imbalances, a certain researcher wants to study, among others, 200 children whose pituitary glands fail to produce typical amounts of Human Growth Hormone (HGH).

Conclusion

The proposed study (giving HGH to children whose bodies don't make enough of it) should be prohibited.

Evidence

If a medical research is not likely to reveal important information study about a medical → should be condition prohibited OR if the medical research isn't known to pose only a minimal risk to subjects

Evaluate

Because this paragraph already gave us the Principle, this question feels more like Strengthen + Apply the Principle.

We're given a principle that allows us to say "this medical research should not be permitted", and the author's conclusion is saying .

So we can tell she's trying to say that this Principle is relevant to this proposed study.

Since the principle was in this form Permitted → Likely helpful AND known safe

the contrapositive version that allows us to prove "not permitted" looks like this: Likely helpful OR Known Safe → Permitted

So to justify this conclusion, we don't need both ideas in the trigger. Either would do.

Goal

Look for an answer either saying, or saying,

14.

Which one of the following, if true, would most help to justify the physician's argumentation?

  1. The resources expended on the

    Unrelated to Goal

    This answer isn't telling us either of the two things we're looking for (unlikely to reveal helpful stuff about medical condition / unknown whether poses only minimal risk). This answer would strengthen the idea of "Let's not do this proposed study; let's spend money on something else instead", but it has no strengthening effect on the idea of "This proposed study should be prohibited." There's a big difference between saying "You shouldn't waste your money on that" and "You're not allowed to spend your money on that".

    2% picked this

  2. About 10,000 children have already

    Opposite

    One of the two things we're looking for that would justify this conclusion is that "it's unknown whether this treatment poses only minimal risk". This answer goes in the opposite direction, giving us a robust sample of children who are experiencing minimal risk. This answer would strengthen the idea of "Let's not do this proposed study; let's spend money on something else instead", but it has no strengthening effect on the idea of "This proposed study should be prohibited." There's a big difference between saying "You shouldn't waste your money on that" and "You're not allowed to spend your money on that".

    4% picked this

  3. Obtaining informed consent from children

    Unrelated to Goal

    "Consent" is out of scope. We can't invent our own rule of "If the subject can't give consent, then the research should be prohibited". We need an answer to trigger the provided rule: unlikely to reveal helpful stuff about medical condition or unknown whether poses only minimal risk

    2% picked this

  4. Although hormonal imbalances can cause

    Too Weak

    This almost establishes that "doing this research is unlikely to reveal important information about a medical condition", but not quite. We don't have to believe that the only medical condition we could learn about by giving HGH to kids is the 'hormonal imbalances' (which, this answer tells us, not a medical condition). It could be that the hormonal imbalances these kids have don't necessarily come from the same underlying root condition. Maybe giving them synthetic HGH while taking into account other differences we know about them would reveal important information. Perhaps one of them has low HGH because of a certain auto-immune disease, and when we give that kid HGH the kids' fevers and body aches disappear. That would be important information about that auto-immune disease. So the fact that hormonal imbalances aren't themselves a medical condition doesn't quite establish that doing this research is unlikely to give us some important info about something that is a medical condition.

    22% picked this

  5. Correct

    The long-term effects of synthetic

    Why this is right

    This establishes the 2nd of the two things we were hunting for. unlikely to reveal helpful stuff about medical condition or unknown whether poses only minimal risk Since we had a rule that said "medical research is permitted only if it's known to pose a minimal risk", then saying "the long-term effects of this medical research have never been tested and are unknown" would violate that necessary requirement. Hence, the author would be right to say the study should be prohibited.

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

    71% 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