Logical Reasoning

PT150 · S2 · Q5 Lawyer: In a risky surgical procedure

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

Lawyer: In a risky surgical procedure that is performed only with the patient's informed consent, doctors intentionally cause the patient's heart and brain functions to stop by drastically reducing the patient's body temperature.

Conclusion

If life functions don't resume following the procedure (in which the heart and brain functions are stopped by drastically reducing patient's body temp), the medical team is technically guilty of manslaughter.

Evidence

The doctors are deliberately stopping the patient's life functions.

Evaluate

There is definitely some cognitive dissonance in agreeing with this argument --- the patients have always given informed consent when this procedure is done, but we're still going to find the medical team guilty of manslaughter if the procedure goes awry?

It helps, maybe, that the conclusion is just saying the medical team is technically guilty of manslaughter. We're not morally blaming them (the patient wanted them to try this), but the fact that they deliberately stopped life functions and life functions didn't resume apparently fits the technical definition of manslaughter.

Goal

We just want a rule that would apply to a medical team doing this test, and that would output the idea that "this is technically manslaughter". Something like,

deliberately stop someone's life → manslaughter functions and those don't resume

5.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the lawyer's analysis?

  1. Any time a medical procedure

    Too Weak

    This principle only allows us to conclude that a medical team could be charged with manslaughter. But this conclusion we're trying to justify is that the medical team is guilty of manslaughter.

    9% picked this

  2. If a medical procedure is

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This is a rule that would only allow us to conclude someone isn't guilty of manslaughter, but not that someone is guilty of manslaughter. The "only if" is modifying patient dies. Guilty of manslaughter → patient dies So this rule tells us that, "if the patient doesn't die, then you're not guilty of manslaughter". But it doesn't give us a way to prove you are guilty of manslaughter. Consider a real world parallel, If someone is applying to Harvard with a 160 LSAT, then only if they have an amazing personal statement will they be accepted. That gave us a mechanism for proving you wouldn't be accepted (applying w/ 160 + don't have amazing personal statement), but nothing in there allows us to guarantee someone will be accepted.

    9% picked this

  3. One is guilty of manslaughter

    Bad Conclusion Match

    Once again, this answer can only prove "one is not guilty of manslaughter", because they have "guilty" on the left side of the arrow. "Only when" = "Only if" = necessary, put on RIGHT Guilty of manslaughter → intends to cause ... Any time you see your Conclusion show up on the left of the arrow, you know it's wrong. We could stop reading when we hit the "only when". If we kept reading, of course, we would also see that the 2nd half of this answer doesn't match the conversation. No doctor in this stimulus was intending to cause irreversible loss of life.

    3% picked this

  4. Correct

    Deliberately bringing about the cessation

    Why this is right

    "if and only if" is a bi-conditional indicator, which just means it reduces to an Either/Or. Either, the cessation of life functions is permanent, in which case it is manslaughter, Or, the cessation of life functions is not permanent, in which case it isn't manslaughter. This principle will do the job for us, since we're trying to prove that in cases in which life functions do not resume (i.e. cases in which the cessation of life functions is permanent) qualify as manslaughter. And this rule says, "yes, indeed. If you deliberately ceased a person's life functions and that cessation is permanent, then it's manslaughter."

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

    77% picked this

  5. Intentionally stopping a patient's life

    Bad Trigger Match

    "Unless" = we need to take either half of this sentence and put its negated form to the Left of the arrow (that's why we often use the shorthand if-not to talk about what we do with unless). The second half of the sentence is a complex idea (X and Y), so if you're putting the negated form on the left, you need to put (~X or ~Y). We can otherwise take the easier route and choose to put the negated version of the 1st idea on the left. intentionally stopping patient agrees life functions not → and manslaughter might die w/o treatment The contrapositive is where we would get our conclusion on the right of the arrow, where we need it. patient doesn't agree intentionally stopping or → life functions is not risking death by manslaughter avoiding treatment The right side looks good, but we don't have match for either of those Trigger ideas.

    2% 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