Q19 - Jeff: Proposed regulations concerning

[yusangmin]

ok so jeff says, the experiment is

humans emphathize -> ban experimentation

then he goes "but all mammals can feel pain like dogs and horses" (hes assuming that, feel pain --> empathize?..this is one im also curious about)

thus the proposal should help all experimentation on all MAMMALS.

so D is the right answer, im guessing if scientists empathize with any mammal just as much as they do dogs, then that fulfills the sufficient condition for them being within the scope of the proposal.

However, doesnt E help? "experimentation should be prohibited on any creature that is capable of feeling pain"

the authors conclusion is that all experimentation should be banned for all mammals.
and we know all mammals feel pain. Thus, if any creature capable of feeling pain CANNOT be experimented on, then mammals fit into this category, thus banning experiment on them. is the problem the fact that theres scientific in there? i have no idea, cannot find a good reason that this is bad, the whole empathy thing wasnt in there so it felt odd but still, i feel like it fulfills the requirement for banning experimentation on all mammals. the only thing i feel is odd is the lack of scientific in the answer choice, but in the stimulus it says "the use of animals in scientific experimentation would prohibit experimentation" so i dont feel like thats it.

also, its not like it says justify the reasoning, its simply justify the conclusion.

thanks!

[bbirdwell]

Ok. There are some subtle issues here that've been glossed over, so let's straighten this mess out. First of all, our task is to strengthen (support) Jeff's conclusion with a principle (a general rule that will apply to jeff's specific situation). The correct answer will likely function much like an "assumption" answer choice, but need not.

Let's analyze Jeff's argument:

Premises: Proposal = prohibit experimentation on species that humans empathize with (i.e. dogs and horses).
All mammals can feel pain.

Conclusion: The proposal should be extended to all experimentation on all mammals.

Now, if we're anticipating the correct answer to be phrased like an assumption, which is fine, we'll expect it to connect "empathizing" to "feeling pain" somehow.

But this is a trickier problem and we're not given an answer that does that that. Rather, the correct answer just goes the direct route of saying "no experiments on creatures that feel pain."

The correct answer is (E). Notice that this choice very directly supports the conclusion of the argument, so if you're too tangled up in the logic of empathy and pain, you'll miss it.

I don't know if you have the wrong answer sheet or something, but (D) is not correct.
It doesn't support the conclusion, which is that the "proposal be extended..." If (D) were established, then the proposal wouldn't need to be extended, b/c all mammals would be covered by the original proposal.

A good tip is stay very focused on the conclusion - exactly as worded - in all variations of strengthen/weaken questions, even if your task is to strengthen by principal. It's great to anticipate what you think the answer should do, but be ready to adapt when that doesn't happen.

Great question, btw! This one is not easy. Does that it clearer?

[jimmy902o]

Can you also go over why answer choices A and C are wrong? As a side note I liked answer choice E but did not chose it because there was no limiting condition such as "only those experiments" or "primarily concerned with" in order to adress Mirandas claim that pain is not the central issue.

[samuelfbaron]

Doesn't (E) go way too far for a general principle? Or is it simply accepted because it is the best answer amongst a bunch of weak answers?

[sumukh09]

Doesn't (E) go way too far for a general principle? Or is it simply accepted because it is the best answer amongst a bunch of weak answers?

Actually we generally want principles to go too far so that it justifies the conclusion and makes the argument air tight. That's exactly what answer choice E does; Jeff says that mammals can feel pain too so scientific experimentation should be prohibited on those grounds. E, conditionally, says the same thing:

If pain ---> experimentation prohibited

[agersh144]

I seem to recall another similar question on one of the preptest where the answer was too broad the stimulus clearly says "mammals" but our justification would make it even broader to any animal capable of feeling pain.

My question is this -- in principle support questions I thought we want to be as specific as possible with our principle so that it's not too broad and its not too narrow but just right. In this case it seems to me that the principle is certainly sufficient to justify the conclusion and thus can be a fine answer but I would imagine that a principle support question in general would tend to be much more specific/targeted/less generic -- is that typically that case or is this assumption unwarranted?

Thanks!

[tommywallach]

Hey Agersh,

Hmm. Not quite sure what you mean. I don't think there's anything particularly general about scientific experimentation as it relates to pain. A too general principle would be more like, "We shouldn't do anything that causes discomfort in any way." But this is specific to science experiments on animals, and the specific issue of pain. Seems specific to me! : )

-t

[agersh144]

Ah I know what it was. It's necessary assumption that I was mixing up the idea of going to far on-- if we were to assume he had to think that its wrong to cause pain to any animals that feel pain that would be wrong because that would not be necessary for his argument however this is a justify so we can go beyond the necessary here and in fact we must in order to ensure that the conclusion follows. Sorry for the confusion I understand why E is right now, thanks Tommy!

[WaltGrace1983]

Someone asked for more clarification on the wrong ones so I'll try my best. Once again, here is the structure of the argument...

Regulations would prohibit experimentation on species that humans empathize with
+
Research shows that all mammals are capable of pain
→
The proposal (to prohibit experimentation) should be extended to all mammals

To me, it doesn't seem that the first premise is particularly relevant. I know someone was talking about connecting empathy with pain but I don't see how that would do too much. We are really instead focused on connecting the idea of pain and experimentation. We want a principle to show that IF the mammal feels pain THEN we shouldn't experiment on it. That is the real crux of this argument.

(A) It doesn't matter what the regulations should be primarily concerned with. We are trying to justify the issue about not experimenting on mammals due to their feeling pain! In addition, we especially don't care about the feelings of those who are performing the experiments. The stimulus talks about humans in general and how they empathize with horses and dogs.

(B) This is focused on HOW we determine who/what feels pain. This simply is not relevant. We are focused on HOW the PAIN impacts whether or not we should experiment on them.

(C) This is very close. This says (Prohibited → Experiment causes animals pain). However, we are actually looking to reverse this arrow. We are looking for something that says IF pain, THEN prohibited; something like (Experiment causes animals pain → Prohibited).

(D) We don't care about whether or not scientists should or should not empathize with mammals and we especially don't care about the relative empathy given to different mammals. This is out of scope. We want to connect PAIN to EXPERIMENTATION!

(E) This is perfect! It says (capable of feeling pain → ~experimentation). This actually is a sufficient that 100% proves Jeff's argument.