Hi! D is incorrect because Mary isn't a practicing veterinarian. As we learn in the first sentence, she is still a veterinary student, so this principle wouldn't apply to her.
In regards to how to approach it, we are trying to determine which principle would validate Mary's decision not to perform the experiment. I just start by eliminating what I know isn't correct:
A - Incorrect. We learn that the dog is under anesthesia, so we don't necessarily know that the dog would feel pain.
C - Incorrect. It could be that what Mary learns from her experiment actually does prevent future animal suffering, so this answer choice could actually could invalidate her decision (the opposite of what we want to do here).
D - Incorrect. Mary isn't a practicing veterinarian.
E - Incorrect. Mary wouldn't be acting with the sole intention of hurting/killing the dog, but rather to learn about shock.
Via process of elimination, my answer is B. B is correct because of what you noted. Mary's experiment isn't "immediately" saving several animal lives or a person. We also have to recognize that B is a conditional statement:
Taking life justified --> several animal lives/person's health protected.
Contrapositive: "several animal lives/person's health NOT protected --> taking life NOT justified." This justifies Mary's decision. She wasn't saving animal lives or protecting a person's health, so the experiment, which would kill the dog, wasn't justified.
2
You've discovered a premium feature!
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
Hi! D is incorrect because Mary isn't a practicing veterinarian. As we learn in the first sentence, she is still a veterinary student, so this principle wouldn't apply to her.
In regards to how to approach it, we are trying to determine which principle would validate Mary's decision not to perform the experiment. I just start by eliminating what I know isn't correct:
A - Incorrect. We learn that the dog is under anesthesia, so we don't necessarily know that the dog would feel pain.
C - Incorrect. It could be that what Mary learns from her experiment actually does prevent future animal suffering, so this answer choice could actually could invalidate her decision (the opposite of what we want to do here).
D - Incorrect. Mary isn't a practicing veterinarian.
E - Incorrect. Mary wouldn't be acting with the sole intention of hurting/killing the dog, but rather to learn about shock.
Via process of elimination, my answer is B. B is correct because of what you noted. Mary's experiment isn't "immediately" saving several animal lives or a person. We also have to recognize that B is a conditional statement:
Taking life justified --> several animal lives/person's health protected.
Contrapositive: "several animal lives/person's health NOT protected --> taking life NOT justified." This justifies Mary's decision. She wasn't saving animal lives or protecting a person's health, so the experiment, which would kill the dog, wasn't justified.