Logical Reasoning

PT119 · S3 · Q20 Scientist: Genetic engineering has aided

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

Scientist: Genetic engineering has aided new developments in many different fields.

Conclusion

Genetic engineering is not unethical. rephrase: It's okay to do genetic engineering.

Evidence

Selective breeding, as we've done with farm animals for millennia, is a crude form of genetic engineering.

Evaluate

The author is arguing both by appeal to analogy and to tradition.

She's saying, . This assumes that anything we've done for millennia couldn't be unethical.

That doesn't seem like sound logic. Slavery existed for centuries, if not millennia, and it is clearly unethical.

The other structure at play here is the argument by analogy, where we say,

Let's look at the two things and what similarities they're meant to have in common:

Picking which farm animals Manipulating the genetic you want to use for breeding codes of organisms

intended similarity 1: they're both a form of genetic engineering intended similarity 2: they're both ok (not unethical)

We might dispute either of the intended similarities. Is it really fair to say that both of these things are genetic engineering? Or is this equivocation? One of them literally means manipulating the genetic code of a living organism. The other one is talking about organizing which two things will have sex.

Is it really fair to say they're both ok? Who ever said that crude farm-based genetic engineering we've been doing for millennia is actually ethical?

Goal

The answer might deal with the missing link.

It might deal with the author's assumption that farm-breeding and genetic-code-manipulation are really relevantly similar forms of genetic engineering.

It might deal with a missing piece of the author's analogy: that farm-based selective breeding itself is ok / ethical.

20.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the scientist's argument depends?

  1. The manipulation of the genetic

    Too Strong

    "Never unethical" is stronger than the argument needs. The argument is about genetic engineering. Genetic engineering requires the manipulation of the genetic code of organisms, but there could be instances of manipulating the genetic code of organisms that don't qualify as genetic engineering. Genetic engineering kind of implies that you're manipulating DNA because you're trying to design a better / more useful organism. We can imagine maybe a terrorist group unleashing a bioweapon that manipulates DNA to harm people, or maybe a futuristic corporation that manipulates DNA so that people will buy more of their products. The author would be fine with admitting that those instances of manipulating genes are unethical.

    2% picked this

  2. Anything that is accomplished by

    Bad Assumption

    When we see conditional answers, such as this one, on NA, we can analyze the left-to-right reasoning move it describes and ask ourselves whether that's one the author made in the evidence. Did she assume, "If nature did X, then it's ethical for science to do X"? No, no part of her evidence involves saying that nature did something. Humans have done genetic engineering "a more natural way" in the past by deciding which farm animals would get busy with each other, but that wasn't accomplished by nature. That was manipulated by human intervention. Since the trigger of this move doesn't match anything from the evidence, there's no way it would match a reasoning move the author made.

    6% picked this

  3. Correct

    The manipulation of the genetic

    Why this is right

    This has that lovable Defender "not" that makes you pause and think, "If I removed the 'not', would it become an objection?" Hey author, the selective breeding we were doing for millennia is unethical! Yeah, that ruins the whole analogy. The author is saying our new behavior must be okay because it's similar to our traditional behavior. But if we say, "Yeah, but the traditional behavior wasn't okay. It was unethical", then the argument crumbles.

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

    89% picked this

  4. The manipulation of the genetic

    Out of Scope

    The argument is about whether genetic engineering is unethical, not whether selective breeding is important for human survival. Importance and ethics are two different topics.

    1% picked this

  5. Science can accomplish only what

    Too Strong

    The author hasn't committed to the idea that all science is essentially natural, or that all natural things are ethical. The scientist is arguing about two human-engineered practice (selective breeding + manipulating DNA directly), not "what nature does." So she never makes any assumptions about natural / nature.

    1% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

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

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