Self-paced
Police published a “wanted” poster for a criminal fugitive in a medical journal, because the fugitive was known to have a certain acute noninfectious skin problem that would eventually require a visit to a doctor. ███ ██████ █████ ███ ███████████ █████ ███ ███████████ ██ ███ █████████ █ █████████████ ██████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ███████ ███ ███████████ █████ ███ ███████ ███████ ███████ █████ ██████████ ███ ███████ ███████ ██ ████████████ ██ ██████ ███████ ██████ ██ ██████ ███ ███████ ██████████ ████████ ██ ██████ ████████████ █████ ██████████ ██ ███████████████ ███ ███████ ████████
Objective: Identify a Principle to Support... the Opposite Conclusion?
This question stem is a little unusual: although we need to find a principle which supports a conclusion, we are not supporting the argument's conclusion that an action would align with medical ethics. Instead, we're supporting the opposite conclusion that the action would violate medical ethics. However, in doing so we cannot contradict the premises used in the original argument.
Requirements for the Correct Answer
Our first step to assess each option is to check if the answer choice is compatible with the premises of the original argument. That might let us easily eliminate a few choices. So what are the premises that the answer choices need to respect? First, that it is ethical to report gunshot wounds to police, and second, that it is ethical to report infectious diseases to health authorities. Any principle that prohibits either of these reports can be eliminated.
Once we've narrowed down our choices, the second step is to check which remaining answer choice supports the question stem's conclusion that reporting a fugitive's noninfectious skin problem to police would violate medical ethics. Whichever answer choice supports this conclusion without contradicting the original argument's premises, will be correct.
13.
Which one of the following ███████████ █████ █████████ ██████████ ████ ███ ████████████ █████ ██████ ████████ ███ ████ ████ █ █████████████ ██████████ ██ ███ ███████ █████ ███████ ███████ ███████
a
Since a physician ████ ████ ██ █ ████████████ ██████ ███ ██ █ ████████ ██ ██ ███ ███████ ███ █ █████████ ██ ███████ ███████████ █████ ████████ ████ ████ ███████████ ███ ███████████ ████████ ████ ████ ██████ █████████████
Is (A) consistent with both premises? Yes, (A) doesn't limit disclosure of information at all. This means it allows both reporting gunshots to police and reporting infectious diseases to health authorities.
Does (A) support the question stem's conclusion? No, it would actually do the opposite. We need a reason not to report a health condition to police. (A) tells us a physician must report that information.
b
Since a patient █████ ██ █ █████████ ████ ███ ███████████ ████ ███ ███████████ █████ ███ ███████ █████████ ████ ██████ █████████████ ██ ██ ███ ███████ ███ █ █████████ ██ █████ ████ ███████████ ████ ██████ ██████ █████████ ██████ ███ █████████████ ███████
Is (B) consistent with both premises? No, (B) contradicts both premises. Neither police nor health authorities are within a physician's office, so (B) would make reporting gunshots and reporting infectious diseases unethical.
There's no need to check if (B) supports the question stem's conclusion, because we can already eliminate it for contradicting the argument's premises.
c
Since the primary ███████ ██ ████████ ██ ██████████ ███ ██████ ███████ ██ ██ ███ ███████ ███ █ ██████████ ██████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ███████ ███████ ██ ██████ ███████████ ███████████ ██ ████ ███ █████████ ██ █ ██████ ██ ██████████ █████ ██████████ ██ ███████████████ █████████
Is (C) consistent with both premises? Yes, (C) doesn't limit disclosure to health authorities at all, and makes a specific exception for gunshot wounds despite limiting disclosure to law enforcement.
Does (C) support the question stem's conclusion? Yes, (C) prohibits all reports to law enforcement except for gunshot wounds. This supports the conclusion that a physician should not report the fugitive's health condition to police.
d
Except as required ██ ███ ███████ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████████ ██████ █████████ ████████ ██ ██████ ███████████ █████ █ ███████████ ████████ ██ ███████ █████████ ███████ ███ ███████████ ████████
Is (D) consistent with both premises? No, (D) prohibits all information disclosure that's not required for the patient's treatment. This would probably prohibit about reporting infectious diseases to health authorities, and would definitely prohibit reporting gunshots to police.
There's no need to check if (D) supports the question stem's conclusion, because we can already eliminate it for contradicting the argument's premises.
e
Except to other ███████ █████████ ███████ ██ ████████ ██ ███████ ███ ██████ ██ █ ███████ ██ ██ █████ ████████ ██████████ ██████ █████████ ████████ ███████████ █████ ███ ████████ ██ ████████ ██ █████ ███████ ██████████
Is (E) consistent with both premises? No, (E) prohibits all disclosure to anyone other than medical personnel. While this would probably allow reporting infectious diseases to health authorities, it would definitely prohibit reporting gunshots to police.
There's no need to check if (E) supports the question stem's conclusion, because we can already eliminate it for contradicting the argument's premises.