PT19 S2 Q12

TheBatman

Correct me if I am wrong in my explanation.

*The kind of question this is:* Weaken

*Paraphrased question:* CARL: Legally, researchers who preform experiments on animals are required to complete detailed pain protocols indicating whether the animals will be at risk pain. Yet, when humans undergo operations, operators/doctors are not required to complete detailed pain protocols for humans.

DEBBIE: A person undergoing surgery can be told what pain they will be going through, so there is no need for a complete detailed pain protocols for humans.

*What I am looking for:* Not sure yet, but something that has to do with Debbie’s conclusion about there is no need for a complete detailed pain protocol for humans.

*Answer A:* No. That's irrelevant to what Debbie is saying. It might be true, but not what we are looking for.

*Answer B:* No. I’m sure that might be true, but does not weaken Debbie’s conclusion.

*Answer C:* No, I’m sure it’s not hard, but we are contesting whether it is necessary to have pain protocols in the first place.

*Answer * Yes, infants have no way of understanding pain, so complete detailed pain protocols for humans would be good.

*Answer E:* No, this has nothing to do with Debbie’s argument. Unalleviated pain after the operation is different than what pain the operation itself would cause. Whether or not to go with the operation, due to the pain it may cause without proper acknowledgement and understanding about the pain, is what is being contested here. Carl says we should have complete detailed pain protocols for animals, and Debbie says we don’t need one because humans can be told by a doctor what pain they will be going through.

c.janson35

You are correct in your explanation! Nice work!