Q18 - Mary, a veterinary student

[b91302310]

The answer choice is (B). However, how could this answer choice infer that " unless doning so ... or in protecting the health of a person" ??

Could anyone explain it ?

Thanks!

[bbirdwell]

This is a tough question, and the correct answer is best discovered through process of elimination.

(A) is out because the experiment is not "gratuitous" -- it's for the purpose of observing shock.

(C) doesn't do it because perhaps future animal suffering will be prevented by this -- we don't know.

(D) is out because Mary is not a practicing vet -- she is a vet student.

(E) is out because the sole intention is not cause the death of the animal.

(B) is the best choice because it is more reasonable than the other choices. We can safely infer that this experiment will not IMMEDIATELY assist in saving animal lives because the experiment is simply designed to demonstrate what shock looks like in this one animal. Note that the common objection here is "what if the student learns something that will help her saves animal lives?" This objection is ruled out by the word "immediately." Finally, the experiment clearly has nothing to do with protecting a human.

#OfficialExplanation

[geverett]

Hey Brian,
Is D also out because this does not necessarily qualify as an "unnecessary death"? It's for the purpose of observing physiological consequences of shock so it could be classified as necessary? yes? no?

Also in C the use of "only sufficient" . . . would that create a double arrow like so:

exp. on animals <--->future animal suffering prevented

[lhermary]

I'm having a hard time swallowing this answer. No where does it mention that the experiment will or will not assist in saving an animal or human life. Traditionally in a principal question this would mean that if something not mentioned in the stimulus is in an answer choices then it is wrong. Because of this I eliminated B right away.

Help

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

True, but you're missing the most important word in the answer choice - "immediately."

We definitely know the experiment will not immediately assist in saving several animal lives or in protecting the health of a person. Since we know the necessary condition will not be met, we can establish that the experiment is not justifiable.

Hope that helps!

[syousif3]

But wouldnt the 'not justified' part be considered the necessary condition because of the unless?

not immediately assist in saving several animal lives or in protecting the health of a person--->not justified

Is that correct?

[timmydoeslsat]

But wouldnt the 'not justified' part be considered the necessary condition because of the unless?

not immediately assist in saving several animal lives or in protecting the health of a person--->not justified

Is that correct?

It is not correct to interpret the answer choice in that way. The unless statement is to be interpreted by taking the part that immediately comes after the word unless to be the necessary condition. The part that comes before the word unless is to be considered the sufficient condition, and you are to negate this statement, however it comes.

If it is the case that there is no statement prior to the use of unless, the concept that immediately follows the word unless is still the necessary condition. Then, you will have some some sort of clause after this portion, which is to be considered the sufficient condition, which you will negate.

Examples:

A is not justified unless B.

A justified ---> B

Unless B, A is justified.

~A ---> B

Answer choice B is really saying this:

taking life is justified ---> immediately save life or protect person

This is a common construct of principles.

Lets pretend you are trying to prove that something is justified.

A great answer choice for us would be "if not justified ---> Some requirement goes here.

If we can show that we have a situation where the requirement cannot be fulfilled, we can prove "justified."

[magnusgan]

I missed the part about her being a vet student and not a practicing vet but I eliminated (B) because she was not reaaally taking the life of an animal... She was performing an experiment which just had as an unfortunate coincidence the death of the animal.

If the stimulus was about sacrificing lab rats in order to harvest organs for an experiment then I would have gone with (B) for sure... Do I make sense? :/

Btw, "only sufficient" means what exactly? Is that both a necessary and sufficient???? So double arrow?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

If the stimulus was about sacrificing lab rats in order to harvest organs for an experiment then I would have gone with (B) for sure... Do I make sense? :/

Makes sense, but the outcome of the experiment was clear - it would end in the taking of life of an animal. So, I'd stick with the reason that Mary was not a practicing veterinarian.

Btw, "only sufficient" means what exactly? Is that both a necessary and sufficient???? So double arrow?

I'd set up the statement as:

Taking the life an animal is justified --> Prevent future animal suffering

I guess it's possible that one could prevent future animal suffering without needing to take the life of an animal. It's sufficient justification, but is not sufficient to guarantee that one would actually take the life of an animal.

[WaltGrace1983]

So let me get this straight. (B) and (C) are both similar answers with one crucial difference?

(C) says the following:

Future animal suffering is NOT thereby prevented → ~Justified

(B) says the following:
does NOT immediately assist in saving several animals lives or in protecting the health of a person → ~Justified

I just don't see how we can infer (B)'s sufficient condition but we CANNOT infer (C)'s sufficient condition.

(B)'s sufficient condition is softer and much more believable. Because the stem is looking for a principle that "most closely accords" rather than "justifies," is this why (B) is correct?

I picked (A)...undervalued the "gratuitously" part.

[rinagoldfield]

This is a REALLY hard question. Like Brian said above, I think it’s best approached with a process of elimination.

I actually think the crucial difference between (B) and (C) lies in their necessary conditions rather than their sufficient conditions. We’re trying to show here that killing an animal is not justified. (B) talks about whether "taking the life of an animal is justified." (C), on the other hand, talks about whether "experimenting on animals" is justified. But that’s not really what’s at stake. Killing, not experimentation, is at stake.

Of all the answer choices, ONLY (B) discusses whether actually killing an animal is justified. This is how I was able to eliminate the wrong answer choices.

--Rina

[Mab6q]

I'm going to tackle this question because I missed it. I believe I missed it not because I misread the stimulus, but rather because I didn't quite understand what the question was asking us to do.

The question asks us to find a principle that Mary's decision applies to. I read the question as asking for the underlying principle in Mary's decision. I believe there's a difference.

In the question, we can have a broad answer choice that entails the stimulus. In the latter, we would need a more limited principle that expresses the reasoning used to establish the argument.

The stimulus essentially says:

The experiment hurts/kills the dog --> ~decides to do it

Okay, on to the answers:

A. the experiment didn't require gratuitous behavior.

B, Taking life justified --> immediately assist in saving several animal lives or protecting human health.

In the argument, we don't know that the experiment is going to immediately assist in saving animal lives or protecting human health, and because it doesnt't do that, it is not justified. This might prove it in a broad sense if we equated not knowing with not doing. Let's leave it for now.

C. I read it as:

Future animal suffering is prevented <--> experimenting is justified. The "only sufficient" refers to the "future animal suffering is prevented", and that suffices "experiment justified". However since that is the "only" condition, it must also be necessary for an "experiment to be justified" because it's the sole condition that could cause it.

Also seems good, hold on to it.

D. She is a student, don't spend any more time on this.

E. Is very tempting if you ask me. However, although she does intend to kill the animal if she proceeded with the experiment, otherwise how would she conduct it, killing the animal is NOT her SOLE intention. That is the issue here, and for that reason it is wrong.

So we are left with B and C. One think I want to note is how different this these two choices would be if we read this question as a typical principle identify question (as I did ), and not as one in which we find an answer choice in which her decision would be justified by.

If we went with the former, B and C would, in my opinion, immediately be incorrect because nothing underlying her argument is about saving or protecting future animals or humans. We need to look broader than the argument.

Okay, back to B and C.

As has previously been discussed, this answer choice seems to miss the mark by talking specifically about experiments and not about the life of an animal. I'll admit that the difference between the two is not much, but ultimately there is no reason why you could look to C and say that it is better than B. Since we are looking for the principle that "most closely accords"... we have to go with B for being the better choice.

Hope that helps.

[economienda]

it this the correct way to diagram (B):

~immediately assist saving several animals lives OR ~protecting health of a person —> ~justifiable to take life of an animal

CONTRAPOSITIVE:

justifiable to take life of an animal —> immediately assist saving several animals lives AND protecting health of a person

[haeeunjee]

This is how I quickly eliminated (C). (I actually ended up choosing (A) because I thought her actions were gratuitous, totally missed that if it was to "observe shock," it wouldn't have been gratuitous. I was pretty shocked at the graphic image the stimulus triggered and avoided re-reading it haha)

Future animal suffering is prevented <---> experimenting on animals

Breakdown:
i. If future animal suffering is prevented --> you can experiment on animals
ii. If you experiment on animals ---> it is understood that future animal suffering will be prevented

But what is Mary's ultimate conclusion/decision? She decides NOT to experiment on animals. I'm not sure if this is formal logic, but I put her conclusion as the necessary condition: "If future animal suffering is not prevented ---> Mary cannot experiment on animals"

And yes, that is basically the contrapositive of (C) ii. But wait, how do we know that future animal suffering is not prevented?? The word "immediately" in (B) is what made it right, and the word "future" in (C) is what makes it wrong. Maybe the study of shock will help to prevent future animal suffering. And if it does, then that means that a sufficient condition of (C) i. is fulfilled, and Mary CAN experiment on animals. But that wasn't her conclusion! I have no idea if this is correct, but this is what went through my head and that's how I eliminated (C) rather quickly on my first run through of the answers.

[a8l367]

Could someone clarify:
experiment ... to observe the ... consequences of shock ===> that experiment will not immediately assist
So why from the info above we can conclude that the experiment will not immediately help? Because it is "experiment" or because "observe"?

[MaxK182]

This is how I quickly eliminated (C). (I actually ended up choosing (A) because I thought her actions were gratuitous, totally missed that if it was to "observe shock," it wouldn't have been gratuitous. I was pretty shocked at the graphic image the stimulus triggered and avoided re-reading it haha)

Future animal suffering is prevented <---> experimenting on animals

Breakdown:
i. If future animal suffering is prevented --> you can experiment on animals
ii. If you experiment on animals ---> it is understood that future animal suffering will be prevented

But what is Mary's ultimate conclusion/decision? She decides NOT to experiment on animals. I'm not sure if this is formal logic, but I put her conclusion as the necessary condition: "If future animal suffering is not prevented ---> Mary cannot experiment on animals"

And yes, that is basically the contrapositive of (C) ii. But wait, how do we know that future animal suffering is not prevented?? The word "immediately" in (B) is what made it right, and the word "future" in (C) is what makes it wrong. Maybe the study of shock will help to prevent future animal suffering. And if it does, then that means that a sufficient condition of (C) i. is fulfilled, and Mary CAN experiment on animals. But that wasn't her conclusion! I have no idea if this is correct, but this is what went through my head and that's how I eliminated (C) rather quickly on my first run through of the answers.

But what is Mary's ultimate conclusion/decision? She decides NOT to experiment on animals. I'm not sure if this is formal logic, but I put her conclusion as the necessary condition: "If future animal suffering is not prevented ---> Mary cannot experiment on animals"

I have been utilizing the online nursing papers help service for a while now, and I must say that it has been a mixed experience. While there have been instances where the service has met my expectations, there have also been occasions where it fell short. One positive aspect of the service is the variety of topics and subjects they cover. Whether it's a specific nursing specialization or a broader healthcare-related topic, they have writers who can handle a wide range of subjects. This versatility has been helpful in addressing different research paper requirements across my coursework. However, one area of concern is the lack of consistency in the quality of the papers. While some papers have been well-researched and structured, others have lacked depth and thorough analysis. This inconsistency has made it difficult to fully rely on the service for consistently high-quality work.