LSAT 158 – Section 3 – Question 07

LSAT 158 - Section 3 - Question 07

May 2020

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Request new explanation

Target time: 0:52

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT158 S3 Q07
+LR
+Exp
Weaken +Weak
Rule-Application +RuleApp
Link Assumption +LinkA
A
1%
150
B
0%
143
C
98%
160
D
1%
145
E
0%
142
120
127
135
 +Easiest 145.724 +SubsectionMedium

Ethicist: This hospital’s ethics code states that hospital staff must not deceive patients about their medical treatment. But we know that Dr. Faris administered medication A to a patient and informed him that it would help him sleep. Medication A has no known sleep-inducing properties. So, Dr. Faris is clearly in violation of the ethics code, despite the fact that the patient’s sleep did improve after taking medication A.

Summarize Argument
An Ethicist argues that Dr. Faris violated the hospital’s ethics code, forbidding doctors from deceiving patients about their medical treatment. The Ethicist argues that Dr. Faris did this when he told a patient that medication A would help them sleep, despite the medication having no known sleep-inducing properties. Although the patient’s sleep improved, the Ethicist argues that the doctor’s statement violated the ethics code.

Notable Assumptions
The Ethicist assumes that Dr. Faris knows that medication A has no known sleep-inducing effects. Furthermore, he also assumes that medication A does not have any secondary effects that could induce sleep. For example, the medication could calm one’s mind, thereby making it easier to sleep despite it not having “sleep-inducing” properties.

A
Dr. Faris was aware that medication A had no known sleep-inducing properties.
If anything, this strengthens the argument because it reinforces the idea that Dr. Faris knowingly gave his patient something he did not believe would help them sleep.
B
A committee at the hospital is currently considering revisions to the hospital’s ethics code.
This is irrelevant to the current argument at play. Just because the ethics code *may* change, does not mean that Dr. Faris did/did not break the code of ethics.
C
Medication A is a pain reliever that can indirectly lead to sleep due to a reduction in the patient’s discomfort.
This is an alternative explanation for Dr. Faris’ statement about medication A helping the patient sleep. Although the medication may not have “sleep-inducing properties,” it could still help someone get rest if they are in pain.
D
Several other members of the hospital staff prescribed medication A to patients who had trouble sleeping.
This just gives more details about the people who work at the hospital. It does not impact the reasoning between Faris’ statement and the ethics code
E
Dr. Faris knew that the patient was not taking any other medications that have sleep-inducing properties.
It does not matter what else (if anything) the patient is taking. This does not address whether Dr. Faris’ statement about the medication was deceptive

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 158 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply