Q14 - Physician: In order to investigate

[LSAT-Chang]

Hello MLSAT folks!

I picked (D) for this answer but have no clue why the rest are clearly incorrect answers. I was able to eliminate (B) but could someone please go over all the answers for me?

The core I had was:

Medical research should be permitted only if it is likely to reveal important information about a medical condition and is known to pose only a minimal risk to the subjects, therefore, the researcher's proposed study should be prohibited.

So the author is assuming that the proposed study is not likely to reveal imp. information about a medical condition or that it does not pose only a minimal risk.

So we need to support the author's conclusion that the researcher's proposed study should indeed be prohibited. So why doesn't (D) work? Isn't it saying that it won't reveal imp. informatino about a medical condition?

But this is what confused me since I also felt like (E) was relevant.. since if the long-term effects are unknown, then we can assume that maybe it poses a greater risk to the subjects and thus should be prohibited.

[timmydoeslsat]

Great question.

I first want to say that the correct answer to this question is E, and it will become obvious why it is E after this post.

We want an answer choice that most justifies why the proposed study should be prohibited. (aka ~Should be permitted) (~ = not)

The condition laid forth in the stimulus is:

Should be permitted ---> Reveal info about a med. condition and known to pose only a minimal risk to subjects

When we look at the contrapositive of this conditional we have:

~Reveal info about a med. condition or ~known to pose only a minimal risk to subjects ---> ~Should be permitted

So if we can have a case of one of those two (or both) sufficient condition options to arrive at the ~should be permitted, then we have an airtight justification!

A) Just because the resources could be put in other places does not justify the reasoning as to why it should not be permitted. The physician does not talk about this concept.

B) We need to know the time span. Anyway even if the time span was indeed long-term, this would not let us arrive at a ~Should be permitted.

C) This is not discussed by the physician. If you were to place this into the argument, it would lead you nowhere. It surely does not lead you to a ~Should be permitted.

D) Just because the hormonal imbalances do not constitute a medical condition, they still could reveal information about a medical condition! So we are left without a pathway to ~Should be permitted.

E) This is what we wanted. The long term side effects are not known and in fact have never been tested! That last part is superfluous however. All we needed to know is that the side effects are unknown. This gives us a case of one our sufficient conditions laid out in the contrapositive which lets us arrive, justifiably, to ~Should be permitted.

[LSAT-Chang]

Great question.

I first want to say that the correct answer to this question is E, and it will become obvious why it is E after this post.

We want an answer choice that most justifies why the proposed study should be prohibited. (aka ~Should be permitted) (~ = not)

The condition laid forth in the stimulus is:

Should be permitted ---> Reveal info about a med. condition and known to pose only a minimal risk to subjects

When we look at the contrapositive of this conditional we have:

Reveal info about a med. condition or known to pose only a minimal risk to subjects ---> ~Should be permitted

So if we can have a case of one of those two (or both) sufficient condition options to arrive at the ~should be permitted, then we have an airtight justification!

A) Just because the resources could be put in other places does not justify the reasoning as to why it should not be permitted. The physician does not talk about this concept.

B) We need to know the time span. Anyway even if the time span was indeed long-term, this would not let us arrive at a ~Should be permitted.

C) This is not discussed by the physician. If you were to place this into the argument, it would lead you nowhere. It surely does not lead you to a ~Should be permitted.

D) Just because the hormonal imbalances do not constitute a medical condition, they still could reveal information about a medical condition! So we are left without a pathway to ~Should be permitted.

E) This is what we wanted. The long term side effects are not known and in fact have never been tested! That last part is superfluous however. All we needed to know is that the side effects are unknown. This gives us a case of one our sufficient conditions laid out in the contrapositive which lets us arrive, justifiably, to ~Should be permitted.

Thank you so much timmydoeslsat!! You are amazing! Thanks for answering all my other posts so quickly as well I really really appreciate it!

[griffin.811]

I was stuck between B and E for a minute.

The reason B looked attractive was because of the fact that this HGH experiment seems to have been done on 10,000 other children. If this is the case, it may appear to others, as it did to me, that there wouldn't be much left to learn.

Eventually I settled on the fact that maybe that study focused on the physiological changes as a result of HGH supplements (enlarged muscles, etc...) where as the new exp may be concerned with psychological affects.

I went with E for the same reason as Timmy. If the long term affects are unknown, we cannot make the case then, that it is known that the risks will be minimal.