Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Hard

PT147 S3 P3 Q17 Explanation

Theoretical vs. Clinical Equipoise

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

TopicsApplicationScience

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Passage

The following passage is based on an article 1987.

Medical practitioners are ethically required to prescribe the best available treatments. In ordinary patient-physician interactions, this obligation is unproblematic, but when physicians are clinical researchers in comparative studies of medical treatments, special issues arise. Comparative clinical trials involve withholding one or more of the treatments from at least one group of patients. no opinion as to which treatment is clinically superior—a state of mind usually termed “equipoise.”

Unfortunately, the conception of equipoise that is typically employed—which I will term “theoretical equipoise”—may be too strict. Theoretical equipoise exists only when the overall evidence for each of two treatment regimens is judged by each clinical researcher to be exactly balanced—an ideal hardly attainable in practice. Clinical researchers commonly have some preference is adhered to, few comparative clinical trials could commence and even fewer could proceed to completion.

These difficulties associated with theoretical equipoise suggest that a different notion of equipoise should be developed, one that I will label “clinical equipoise.” Clinical equipoise would impose rigorous ethical standards on comparative clinical trials without unreasonably constricting them. One reason for conducting comparative clinical trials is to resolve a current or imminent with each side recognizing that opposing experts can differ honestly in their interpretation of the evidence.

The very absence of consensus within the expert clinical community is what makes clinical equipoise possible. One or more of a comparative clinical trial’s researchers may have a decided treatment preference based on their assessments of the evidence. But that is no ethical bar to participation in the trial. The clinical researchers by a sizable constituency within the medical profession as a whole.

What this question is testing

Application

Your task

Pin down exactly what the question asks about the passage — a detail, the author's view, the structure, or the main point — before looking at the choices.

Common trap

Answers that restate a true detail from the passage but don't answer the specific question being asked.

Winning move

Anticipate the answer in your own words from the passage, then find the choice that matches that prediction.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
17.

Suppose two medical treatments are being compared in a clinical trial for their effectiveness in treating a condition. Based on the passage, which one of the following scenarios

Answer choices

  1. Inconsistent with Both29% picked this

    The initial results of the trial so strikingly favored one treatment that they were published and widely disseminated before the study was even half

    Theoretical E thinks the trial should shut down once the doctors become partial. This one didn't, it seems. The results were published halfway through, but it sounds like they kept going at it. Clinical E would be tolerant of doctors having an opinion, if the the field of professionals is collectively undecided. But here, it's drifting towards the idea that the collective (most physicians) is reaching a consensus.

  2. Consistent with Both6% picked this

    Preliminary results in the trial suggest that the two treatments are equally effective in treating the condition; but these results are not reported while

    Since no doctors are being tipped towards one of the drugs, there is no threat of violating Theoretical or Clinical equipoise.

  3. Inconsistent with Both17% picked this

    Several of the physicians participating in the trial think that one treatment is more effective at treating the condition than the other; in this

    This is just like (A). Theoretical would be mad that any clinical trial is going on, given that doctors are partial. And Clinical would be mad that there's a consensus in the field, since Clinical only tolerates doctors' having preferences for a drug if the medical field is overall undecided on that drug.

  4. Correct41% picked this

    Initial results from the trial convince several of the participating physicians that one treatment more effectively treats the condition than the other does; this

    Why this is right

    What separates this from (A) and (C) is that in this example, there is a lack of consensus in the field. The first sentence of the last paragraph says that "the very absence of consensus is what makes clinical equipoise possible". This answer is written obnoxiously, no doubt -- "this does not affect their recognition of X" = "they still know/recognize that X is true" So this is establishing that in the minds of these partial doctors, there is still not a consensus in the field.

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

  5. Consistent with Both7% picked this

    There is consensus among physicians participating in the trial that both treatments are equally effective at treating the condition; however, there is no consensus

    Since the doctors think that both treatments are equally effective, there is no danger for Theoretical or Clinical equipoise to be violated. Once the doctors have a preference, meaning once they think that one drug performs better than the other, than Theoretical says, you can't be a part of the study. Clinical says, you can be a part of the study if there's no consensus in the field. But in this example, like (B), the doctors weren't being tipped towards one drug over the other.

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