Logical Reasoning

PT122 · S4 · Q18 A physician has a duty

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

A physician has a duty to see to the health and best medical interests of the patient.

Conclusion (should)

When the duty to see to the patient's health / medical interests conflicts with the right of the patient to be fully informed about their health, the latter should prevail.

Evidence (since)

The patient's right to be fully informed is a basic right.

If we didn't make that right prevail, we would risk treating the patient as an object not a person.

Evaluate

We're trying to guarantee the idea that in a head-to-head fight, patient's right to be informed should beat out physician's duty to see to patient's best medical interests.

We have two ideas we can use. The patient's right is a basic right, and if we usurped it we would risk treating the patient as a mere object, not a person.

Goal

So there are two potential correct answers:

If it's a basic right, then it beats our a physician's duty.

We should never do anything that carries the risk of treating the patient as mere object, not a person.

18.

The conclusion drawn above follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

All persons have a right
Unrelated to Goal
This answer just deals with what a patient's rights would be if they were fully informed. But this answer doesn't do anything to force a winner in the head to head battle of Physician's Duty vs. Patient's Right
3% picked this
Some actions are right independently
Unrelated to Goal
An answer this weak would almost never be correct on Sufficient Assumption, where the answer needs to 100% guarantee the truth of the conclusion. This answer doesn't do anything to force a winner in the head to head battle of Physician's Duty vs. Patient's Right
5% picked this
Because only persons have rights,
Unrelated to Goal
We don't care about whether or not objects have rights. We care about who should win in a head to head battle of Physician's Duty vs. Patient's Right And this answer doesn't give us any way to crown "Patient's Right" the winner.
18% picked this
Correct
A person’s basic rights should
Why this is right
This answer forces us to pick a winner in the head to head battle of Physician's Duty vs. Patient's Right Since we were told that the Patient's Right is a basic right, if a basic right should never be violated, then we have proven the conclusion that "when physician's duty conflicts with patient's right, the patient's right should prevail (should never be violated)".
Skill tested: Sufficient Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
68% picked this
In medicine, the patient’s basic
Too Weak
Ideas like "usually, tends to, most, generally" are medium-strong, but they will almost always be wrong on Sufficient Assumption because the correct answer on Sufficient Assumption has to guarantee the conclusion 100%, and words of this strength usually only prove that something is probable / likely. This seems to strengthen somewhat, since we know that the patient's right to be fully informed is a basic right. According to this answer choice, that right is stronger than most other rights. But we're trying to judge a head to head between Physician's Duty and Patient's Right. This answer doesn't tell us anything about whether a patient's basic right to information is stronger than a physician's duty.
6% 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