PT150 S2 Q5 ExplanationLawyer: In a risky surgical procedure

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Too Weak9% picked this

   Any time a medical procedure could result in the patient's death, the medical team could

   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%
2. B

   Bad Conclusion Match9% picked this

   If a medical procedure is known to carry a very high risk of causing the patient's death, then only if the patient does die

   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%
3. C

   Bad Conclusion Match3% picked this

   One is guilty of manslaughter only when one intends to cause irreversible loss of a

   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%
4. D

   Correct77% picked this

   Deliberately bringing about the cessation of a person's life functions is manslaughter if and only if

   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%
5. E

   Bad Trigger Match3% picked this

   Intentionally stopping a patient's life functions is manslaughter unless the patient agrees to the procedure and

   "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.

   3%