#18 - Mary, a veterinary student, has been assigned an

[Dave Killoran]

Complete Question Explanation

Strengthen-PR. The correct answer choice is (B).

This is a classic LSAT question, and an incredibly valuable one for helping to understand how the test makers can use hidden conditional reasoning in answers.

The stimulus focuses on Mary, who is a veterinary student assigned to a horrible task: she must end the life of a healthy dog in order to observe how shock works. The last line indicates that Mary has decided not to do this assignment.

The facts here are relatively sparse but straightforward, but the exact reason behind Mary's decision is not given. It's easy enough to assume she objects on some moral ground, but we don't know that for sure, and so try to refrain from assuming the exact reason here. Instead, given the clarity of the stimulus, make sure you know the details and then move on fairly quickly to the question stem and answers.

The question stem asks you to provide a principle that would help make Mary's decision make sense. In other words, which one of the following answers could Mary have used to produce her conclusion (decision).


Answer choice (A): At first glance, this would seem to be an attractive answer since it suggests we shouldn't hurt animals. But, would this experiment "gratuitously cause....pain" ? No, because the animal would be anesthetized. So, if Mary attempted to cite this principle to strengthen her argument, it would not apply.

Side note: in class I often note that death is perhaps the ultimate pain, but LSAC is not taking a such a philosophical viewpoint here. Given the circumstances, pain can be interpreted in the typical sense, as directly physical.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. This answer choice contains a conditional statement using the word "unless." Thus, we have a statement here that can be diagrammed:

• Taking Life Justifiable Immediately Assist

However, we also know that it is an experiment as part of a course on veterinary training, and thus we know it's not for immediate assistance. This means the necessary condition above is not met, which enacts a contrapositive and produces the conclusion that taking the life is not justified. If Mary used this principle, then, her decision would align since this is the same conclusion she made.

Answer choice (C): This is another attractive answer. However, stop for a moment and ask yourself: why is this experiment being done? Mary is a veterinary student who is learning and the goal of the experiment is to "observe the physiological consequences of shock." As a future veterinarian, she will likely see shock again in the future and thus this answer doesn't provide justification for her decision not to perform the experiment since what she learns could be used to prevent animal suffering in the future.

The statement in this answer contains two common conditional indicator words: “only” (which indicates a necessary condition), and “sufficient” (which obviously denotes a sufficient condition). So the first thing to determine is what condition(s) in the sentence those two words refer to or introduce, as we can then know what is going to be sufficient and what is going to be necessary in the relationship.

The word “only” is being used to describe the prevention of future animal suffering, as that is “the only” justification for animal experimentation. That makes “Future Suffering Prevented” a necessary condition:

• Experiment Justifiable Future Animal Suffering Prevented

The word “sufficient” (“sufficient justification”) is also referring to preventing future animal suffering, telling us that preventing suffering is a sufficient justification for animal experimentation. That makes “Future Suffering Prevented” a sufficient condition:

• Future Animal Suffering Prevented Experiment Justifiable

Since “Future Suffering Prevented” is both a sufficient and a necessary condition, we have a classic double-arrow situation:

• Future Animal Suffering Prevented Experiment Justifiable

Since future suffering would be prevented, this means the experiment would be justified, which is the opposite of Mary's decision.

Note: there's no need to go deep into the diagramming here. No matter how you diagram this, as soon as you see that Mary can use this information to possibly prevent future suffering, then this answer would not compel her to not do the experiment.

Answer choice (D): This is a tricky answer choice and tests you on how close you read the stimulus. This answer refers to "practicing veterinarians" whereas the stimulus notes that Mary is simply "a veterinary student." And that is enough to make (D) incorrect.

Answer choice (E): The sole intention of the experiment is not to cause the death of the animal. That's certainly an outcome of the experiment, but the intention is "to observe the physiological consequences of shock."

[destaat]

I don't understand the second part of the correct answer. How can that be applied to the stimulus if the it makes no mention of immediate or non immediate assistance of humans an animals. Is it because the stimulus just say the procedure is for observational purposes?

Thank you.

[Dave Killoran]

Hey A.T.,

This is a classic question, and you've hit on part of the solution in noting that the procedure is just for observational purposes. We also know that it is an experiment as part of a course on veterinary training, and thus we know it's not for immediate assistance. Using that, if I recall correctly, answer choice (B) can be used to enact a contrapositive that supports Mary's decision (not of immediate assistance not justified).

Thanks!

[sdesousa]

Hi!

I'm currently working on the Principle chapter in the LR Question Type Training book (preptests 1-20) and I'm having difficulty understanding question #10. I thought I had a good grasp on the principle behind Mary's decision, but I guess I didn't interpret the stimulus correctly.

I chose answer choice E (I kept D as a contender but I ruled it out because it addresses practicing veterinarians and Mary is only a student). The correct answer choice is B but I cannot comprehend how B is an applicable principle. Doesn't the principle go too far given that the "unless" portion of the answer choice is not addressed in the stimulus?

I hope someone can help!

Thanks so much,
Sandy

[jeff.wren]

Hi Sandy,

You are absolutely correct that answer choice (D) does not apply to Mary since she is not a practicing veterinarian.

The problem with answer choice (E) is that it mentions having the sole intention of causing death. The experiment is not for the sole intention of killing a dog; it is intended for veterinary educational purposes, specifically for the students to observe the physiological consequences of shock, which may be important for their medical training.

Answer (B) is a conditional statement (as many principles are) using the indicator word "unless." Using the Unless Equation, we can diagram (B) as follows:

TLAJ -> IASSL or IAPHP (if taking the life of an animal is justifiable, then it must immediately assist in saving animal lives or immediately assist in protecting the health of a person)

The contrapositive of this statement is:

not IASSL and not IAPHP -> not TLAJ (if it does not immediately assist in saving animal lives and it does not immediately assist in protecting the health of a person, then taking the life of an animal is not justifiable)

As you pointed out, the experiment does neither of these two things, which by the contrapositive would indicate that the experiment is not justifiable. This principle best matches Mary's decision given these facts.

You asked whether the principle goes too far. Principles can be very broad, often much broader than the facts given. The important thing is that the facts fit within the principle, or that the principle would apply to the facts given, even if the principle could apply to many other situations.

Answer (B) is basically saying that it is never justifiable to take the life of an animal except in two specific situations. Since neither of those situations happens here, the general rule that taking the life of an animal is not justifiable applies. Because Mary chooses not to do the assignment, her decision most closely matches the reasoning in this principle.

[sdesousa]

Hi Jeff,

Thank you so much for clarifying this question for me! It makes perfect sense now. I think my issue with Principle questions is that I seek an answer choice whose statement is as narrow or as specific as possible with regard to the facts in the stimulus and that doesn't have to be the case.

Thanks again for your help,
Sandy

[srcline@noctrl.edu]

Hello,

For this question I understand that this is a principle question, But I am confused as to why the answer is B and not A. Answer choice A states that All other things being equal, gratuitously causing pain is unjustified. But the correct answer choice (B) states that "Taking the life of an animal is not justifiable unless doing so would immediately assist in saving several animal lives or in the protecting the health of a person. My confusion is where in the stimulus does this suggest that? Mary is a veterinarian and the stimulus only mentions that Mary would require to take a healthy, anesthetized dog and subject it to drastic blood loss in order to observe the physilogical consequences of shock. Where does it suggest humans? And then the next sentence says that dog will neither regain consciousness nor survive the experiment.


Thankyou
Sarah

[BethRibet]

Hi Sarah,

Thanks for the question. The problem with answer choice "A" is the phrase "all other things being equal". We don't know what that vague phrasing references, so we have no idea whether this principle applies to this specific scenario.

With B, you're right that these outcomes -- saving several animal lives immediately, or protecting human health, are not referenced anywhere. But if answer choice B is accepted as a principle, the important thing is that the stimulus just describes the dog dying and being observed. In other words, it is (implicitly) not *immediately* saving anyone else's life or health. The dog is dying, the students are learning. Maybe *later* that knowledge would help save animal lives or protect human health, but in the moment of the experiment, neither condition is met.

I hope that helps!

Beth

[biskam]

I don't understand why D is wrong. Via the CP, this dog is not ill/injured and close to death, therefore, Mary, a practicing vet, has an obligation to strive to prevent the dog's unnecessary death, which she does.

To me both B and D seem valid.

Thank you!

[Dave Killoran]

I don't understand why D is wrong. Via the CP, this dog is not ill/injured and close to death, therefore, Mary, a practicing vet, has an obligation to strive to prevent the dog's unnecessary death, which she does.

To me both B and D seem valid.

Thank you!

Hi Biskam,

This is a great example where you have to read closely in all problems: (D) refers to "practicing veterinarians" whereas the stimulus notes that Mary is simply "a veterinary student." And that is enough to make (D) incorrect.

Thanks!