#3 - Philosopher: Effective tests have recently been

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Must Be True. The correct answer choice is (B)

This stimulus presents an interesting medical ethics question: should a person be warned of having the potential to develop a fatal illness for which there is no known cure, especially when such a warning itself can be damaging? Medical tests now make it possible to detect early warning signs of currently incurable diseases.

Answer choice (A): The philosopher's intent is not to point out the failure of medicine to solve every problem, but to point out a dilemma that has come with a particular medical advance.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. Medicine had advanced to the point where we can detect early warning signs for many diseases, some of which are incurable, and this has presented the new ethical dilemma: should such patients be notified?

Answer choice (C): This answer choice is incorrect because it fails to reference the ethical dilemma presented by the philosopher.

Answer choice (D): This deep thought may be true, but it is not the focus of the philosopher, who is only interested in one particular medical ethical dilemma.

Answer choice (E): The philosopher does not question the value of advancing technology, so this answer choice is incorrect.

[PositiveThinker]

This question really gave me trouble. I picked E because it says the advance of technology is of questionable value. Because if you have the technology to tell a patient about a disease or condition, but don't have the medicine, then its the technology that has the questionable value. How useful is technology when 1. it won't cure you 2. Theres no medicine that will even allow you to be cured after we have this discovery.

The first sentence says "effective tests have recently been developed to predict fatal diseases having a largely genetic basis."

The medicine isn't what gave you the ability to discover the condition. It was the technology. I never heard of any pill, or antibiotic that will force an ethical dilemma. And in this question I don't see how an ethical dilemma will rise with the advancement of medicine. To me, in this question, medicine didn't advance, the technology did. That same technology that could inform you and would be questionable in value.

I really think E is the answer and a potential oversight by LSAC.


Hopefully this makes sense.

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi PositiveThinker,

I see your reasoning with E, but it slightly misframes things by missing some of the possibilities. Even if there is no cure, it is possible that there is some treatment (to reduce symptoms, lengthen lifespan, etc.) and it is also possible that having the information about the disease can help people decide how they want to spend their remaining time, can help them get affairs in order, etc. etc. On top of that, the question isn't referencing technology; it is referencing advances in the field of medicine specifically. So, all around, E just doesn't fit with the stimulus we're given here.

Your problem with B, I think, might be due to a too-narrow reading of the term medicine. Medicine in this context doesn't mean medications specifically, but rather the field of medicine, which includes medications and other treatments but also testing and diagnosis. This is a case where the word "medicine" in the stimulus doesn't mean the same thing as "medicine" in the answer choice, which can definitely be confusing, but which you can identify based on the context clues. As the field of medicine advances, there are new contexts for ethical dilemmas, such as whether early warning tests should be made available given the significant potential downside.

I hope that helps!

[PositiveThinker]

Honestly this is the single best possible explanation i could have gotten. Makes absolute sense and you are correct, I was a little too narrow with my thinking when it came to the word medicine. That was indeed impeding my judgement.

Im so glad you understood my reasoning and explained it in a way that didnt make me feel stupid haha.


Thank you, I am thoroughly impressed with PowerScore and y'alls ability to elaborate without patronizing.

[niki]

Hi,

I have two questions.

1. My powerscore book has categorized this as a "Strenghen", while it is a "MBT" on this page. I personally thought it was a Strengthen—Principle.

2. Secondly, while I completely understand why B is correct, I have trouble understanding why A is wrong. If this is indeed a MBT, then doesn't everything stated in A pass the fact test?

Thank you

[Francis O'Rourke]

Hi Niki,

This question is asking you to find the answer choice that is illustrated or supported by the stimulus. For that reason, it is a Must Be True question. Strengthen questions will ask you to do two things that are not in this question stem:

1. Take the information in each answer choice as true
2. Use the answer choice to support the conclusion in the stimulus

Can you please provide the page number and the name of the book you are looking at, so that we can look into what appears in your book?


As for your question about answer choice (A), there is some uncharacteristically ambiguous grammar in this answer choice. We can understand this answer choice to mean either that the advance of medicine has less than a 100% success rate, or that the advance of medicine has a 0% success rate. If it is the latter case, then clearly this statement is too extreme to be proven by the information in the stimulus: there may be problems that medicine has solved.

If the former interpretation is correct, then things get more complicated. the speaker states that "medicine is not yet able" to prevent some fatal conditions. This leaves open the possibility that medicine is advancing towards solutions to these conditions. Although you may be able to prove that there are some solutions at the present day that medicine has not yet solved, the philosopher would not necessarily agree that medicine cannot solve every problem, provided we give it enough time to advance. The philosopher never makes a strong statement against this possibility.