Logical Reasoning

PT159 · S1 · Q17 Essayist: It would be wrong to defend current testing

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

Start practicing free

Essayist: It would be wrong to defend current testing procedures for new medications simply by appealing to the fact that test subjects are volunteers who are both apprised of and compensated for the risks involved.

Conclusion

It's wrong to defend current testing procedures for new meds on the grounds that the test subjects are volunteers who are warned of risks and compensated for the risks.

rephrase even though the volunteer subjects are warned of risks and compensated for them, these testing procedures for new meds might not be ok.

Evidence

It can be wrong to pay people to do something when they're under duress.

Evaluate

Once we eliminate the concession and rephrase the conclusion, the argument boils down to, because .

The author must be assuming that some of these test subjects who volunteer to participate in the test are choosing to do so under duress.

(There is some common sense behind this assumption. A lot of people who sign up for medical trials of new drugs are at a desperate stage of a terminal illness; other treatments have failed them, so they are trying this new drug under the duress of it being their only hope.)

Goal

The author is Assuming Applicability, i.e. assuming that the premise about would apply to the conclusion about .

So let's look for an answer getting at the assumption that these subjects are under duress when they choose to sign up for these medication tests.

17.

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the essayist's argument?

  1. Correct

    Possessing information about the possible

    Why this is right

    Sneaky, sneaky. We were looking for an answer saying "the test subjects are under duress" and this says "the test subjects are not freely choosing". Same difference. The author's premise was saying, "It's not wrong when they're freely choosing, but it can be wrong when they're under duress". Since the author's conclusion is suggesting that the testing procedures might be wrong, he must be assuming that the subjects "aren't freely choosing, and are under duress." When we see the lovable Defender "not" next to the verb, we can negate the answer and see if it weakens. It would definitely weaken to say, "Hey, author, if the test subjects possess info about the possible consequences (i.e. risks) of participating in the medical study, then that ensures that their choice is free. You said there's nothing wrong with paying someone to do something freely chosen, so there's nothing wrong with these medical trials!"

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

    55% picked this

  2. No transaction can be justified

    Too Strong (no transaction)

    The author is only claiming that medical testing (which often comes with significant health risks) can't be justified merely by saying "the subjects are participating voluntarily". But there could be other transactions that are justified merely on those grounds. For example, the transaction of a bagel shop selling me a bagel can probably be justified purely on the grounds that we both are participating in that transaction voluntarily. The author wasn't making a sweeping claim that voluntary participation never justifies a transaction.

    16% picked this

  3. Anyone who acts without complete

    Too Strong

    This appealingly has the buzzwords of the premise, but it's creating way too strong of a connection. If you're acting with anything less than 100% freedom, then you're clearly under some form of externally imposed duress? The author is just assuming that some of the test subjects agreeing to these medical trials are doing so under duress. He wasn't making a sweeping binary about all actions: they're either 100% free or they're under some form of externally imposed duress. We could see this answer as a conditional, which means we can ask ourselves whether the author made this reasoning move: "Did she establish someone didn't have complete freedom and then start assuming / talking like they were under some form of externally imposed duress?" No. First of all, she just talks about duress. There can be self-imposed duress (you put pressure on yourself to live to 100, for example). Secondly, by saying, "It's not wrong to compliment a women's beauty but the same cannot be said if you compliment her butt", you're not committing to the binary that "Anyone who isn't complimenting a woman's beauty is complimenting her butt".

    21% picked this

  4. There is nothing wrong with

    Opposite (if anything)

    The author is making it seem like there could be something wrong with accepting money for putting yourself at risk in a medical trial, if you chose to join that medical trial under duress.

    2% picked this

  5. People should be permitted to

    Too Strong (any)

    The author definitely didn't give the greenlight to ALL freely chosen actions. According to this answer, if you freely choose to murder a mailman, you should be permitted to perform that action. Our author definitely didn't commit herself to such an extreme worldview.

    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