#19 - Jeff: Proposed regulations concerning the use of

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Strengthen—Principle. The correct answer choice is (E)

The question stem in this problem asks for a principle that would
support Jeff’s conclusion. As such, this is a Strengthen—PR
question, and you can ignore Miranda’s argument since it appears
after Jeff’s argument.

Jeff’s argument can be analyzed as follows:

     Premise: Proposed regulations concerning the use of animals
     in scientific experimentation would prohibit
     experimentation on those species that humans
     empathize with: dogs and horses, for example.

     Premise: But extensive neurological research on mammals
     shows that they are all capable of feeling pain, just
     as dogs and horses are.

     Conclusion: Hence, this proposal should be extended to all
     experimentation on all mammals.

On the basis that all mammals can feel pain, Jeff concludes that the
experimentation prohibition should be extended to all mammals.
In drawing this conclusion, Jeff goes beyond the parameters of the
first premise, which indicates that empathy was the basis for the
proposed experimentation prohibition. Jeff’s conclusion ignores
the empathy factor, and uses just the pain element to arrive at the
conclusion. Most students find the argument relatively easy to
understand, but it is important to separate the exact reason that
underlies Jeff’s position before moving on to the answer choices.

In Strengthen—PR questions, the correct answer provides a
broad premise that can be added to the argument to help prove the
conclusion. In this problem, you must select the principle that,
when applied to the specific situation in the stimulus, helps prove
that scientific experimentation on all mammals should be banned.

Answer choice (A): While this principle provides minor support
for the prohibition discussed in the first premise, this principle
would not apply to Jeff’s conclusion since Jeff did not use empathy
as the basis for his conclusion.

Answer choice (B): Jeff’s argument is not focused on the “means
used to determine whether dogs and horses feel pain.” From his
second premise he knows that all mammals feel pain; the way in
which that is determined is not relevant to his conclusion. Thus,
this answer choice does not help support Jeff’s conclusion.

Answer choice (C): This answer attempts to draw you into a
Mistaken Reversal. The principle in the answer choice states:

          EP = experiment should be prohibited
          KP = experiment known to cause pain to animals

                              EP KP

The assumption in the argument is that scientific experimentation
on animals causes pain, which meets the necessary condition in the
relationship above:

                                   KP

However, the combination of the principle in the answer choice
and the necessary condition from the stimulus does not yield any
conclusion. Hence, this answer does not support Jeff’s conclusion.

Answer choice (D): This is the most frequently selected incorrect
answer choice, with about one in four students selecting (D). As
previously discussed, Jeff’s conclusion is not based on empathizing
with animals. Adding this principle to the argument does not help
support the conclusion that the proposal should be extended to all
mammals; instead, this principle would support the conclusion
that researchers should empathize with all mammals. Since this is
a different conclusion than the one in the argument, this answer
choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer. The principle in the
answer, when combined with the premise, provides overwhelming
support for the conclusion. As with many principles, the one in this
answer choice is conditional:

          KP = experiment known to cause pain to any creature
          EP = experiment should be prohibited

                              KP EP

From the premise we know that all mammals are capable of feeling
pain, so the sufficient condition is met with respect to mammals
(M):

                                   KPM

By applying the Repeat conditional form, we have support for
Jeff’s conclusion that experimentation on all mammals should be
prohibited:

                                   EPM

Thus, if this principle is established, it would provide a great deal
of support for Jeff’s position.

Note the general nature of the principle in the correct answer.
Although animals are addressed, it is in the broadest fashion
possible (“any creature”). This generality is typical of Strengthen—
PR and Justify—PR answer choices.

Some students are concerned that the answer choice does not
mention mammals. By mentioning “any creature” (which of
course includes all mammals), the answer subsumes the group of
mammals and therefore the principle is still usable. For example,
suppose you try to draw a conclusion that no person should hurt a
black cat. A principle stating that “no cats should be hurt” would
apply since “cats” naturally includes “black cats.” The same type
of reasoning is involved in this problem.

[lathlee]

This Q is featured in prep bible lesson 10, 29 . There is excellent Answer Explanation located in following pages
While i don't have any problem why E is the correct answer, this is the issue i have a situation like this: every time i go over, I had c or e final consideration, then i chose C couple times as the final answer couple occasions for the following reasons:

EP , experiment should be prohibited

KP , experiment known to cause pain to animals.

How i can detwrmime which conditio is sufficient condition and other is Necessary Condition given both are decorated by the word, All in the conclusion sentence in Question Stem. Two. If any of these two conditiontion is used as sufficient and necessary condition , both occasion, either case sound fine and valid

[Adam Tyson]

In cases like this one, look to see which claim is the premise and which is the conclusion. The author who says "X is true, therefore Y is true" is saying that X, the premise, is sufficient for Y, the conclusion.

Jeff's premises is that all mammals feel pain. His conclusion is that experiments should be banned. Therefore, he is claiming that pain is sufficient and a ban is necessary.

Answer C gets that backwards, treating a ban as sufficient and pain as necessary.

Perhaps that approach, one of Premise Conclusion, will help you avoid these problems in the future? Good luck, keep at it!

[Administrator]

We recently received the following question from a student. An instructor will respond below. Thanks!

To add: For this specific principle question (Question 19, Preptest 39, Section 2) I feel as I am missing something conceptually important. I understand why E is the correct answer. My issue is with answer choice D.

The conclusion in the stimulus is stated as a "Should" conclusion. I understand that answer choice D does not pick up on the exact premises used by Jeff. But since this is basically a strengthen question, with the addition of a principle, anything that strengthens the conclusion would be correct. In my opinion answer choice D bridges a gap between - the first premise that "experimentation would be prohibited on those animals that humans empathize with" & the conclusion "this proposal SHOULD be extended to experimentation on all mammals." By taking into account answer choice D, it places all mammals under the scope of the first premise implying that, all mammals should qualify to be exempt from experimentation.

[Poonam Agrawal]

Thanks for submitting this question! As mentioned in the complete answer explanation above, answer choice (D) is the most frequently selected incorrect answer - so it is natural to have questions about this one.

Jeff's conclusion is based on the premise of all creatures feeling pain. This is the main reason given to support his conclusion about extending the proposal to experimentation on all animals. We are looking for an answer choice that best supports Jeff's conclusion; hence, we should choose the answer that bridges the gap between Jeff's main reason given for his conclusion and the conclusion itself. This is answer choice (E).

One can argue that the principle established in answer choice (D) actually undermines Jeff's conclusion. If all scientists begin empathizing with all mammals, the proposal would not need to be extended to all mammals. The scientists would stop experimenting on all animals by default, without the extended proposal. Therefore, answer choice (D) not only fails to bridge the gap between Jeff's conclusion and main premise, it actually undermines the main conclusion that calls for an extension of the proposal.