PT91.S2.Q7 - Hospital's ethics code

jacob.elser2jacob.elser2 Free Trial Member
edited October 2021 in Logical Reasoning 63 karma

I ultimately chose (C) but was rather uncomfortable trying to eliminate (D). It seems to me they are conceptually similar:

(C) provides a reason to think there was no "deception" involved - Dr. Faris wasn't deceiving, he knew that improved sleep would likely result from the med.

(D) also provides a reason to think there was no "deception" involved - with other doctors prescribing this medication to patients who had trouble sleeping, Dr. Faris was less likely to be "deceiving" and more likely to be simply going along with the typical prescriptions he/she has observed from other doctors treating patients who had trouble sleeping.

I recognize (D) is more of a stretch, which is why I chose (C), but I'm rarely this uncomfortable on a LR question so early in a section, and would love any further insight on how to more confidently dispatch (D).

Thanks in advance!

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question"

Comments

  • frenchfryefrenchfrye Free Trial Member
    43 karma

    What if several other doctors had prescribed the medication? Would it have any bearing on whether or not he was still going against the code? No. In fact they could all be going against the code knowingly. Since it has no bearing on wether or not he's going against the code you have to eliminate it - where as C directly weakens just as you said.

  • jacob.elser2jacob.elser2 Free Trial Member
    63 karma

    Fair enough. What I was getting at though is that you can interpret (D) in such a way as to preclude the notion that Dr. Faris intentionally deceived, which is the crux of the ethical question. But it takes more assumptions: 1) Dr. Faris knew the other doctors were prescribing med A to sleep-deprived patients, and 2) Dr. Faris, on that basis, believed it was effective for sleep deprivation, and thus he wasn’t intentionally deceiving when he prescribed it. Whereas with C, all you have to assume is that Dr. Faris was aware that relieving the pain would help the patient sleep, which is a much smaller leap in logic (especially given that we’re talking about a doctor). Anyway, thanks for the input.

  • cwlawlawcwlawlaw Member
    edited October 2021 29 karma

    This was a tricky question. I think you're right on it, though. If C didn't exist, I would've chosen D. Addressing which answer is more reasonable is important here.

    But let's also look at why C specifically weakens the argument. An underlying assumption in this argument is that if a medical treatment is non-deceptive, then a medicine administered will directly address a symptom (Accordingly, if a medicine does not directly address a symptom, it is a deceptive medical treatment). Answer choice C attacks this assumption by challenging the idea that non-deceptive treatments need to have medicines that directly address symptoms when they could very well indirectly address them. Answer choice D doesn't attack the reasoning used by the argument, which often makes for a weaker answer.

    This is probably more complicated and abstract of an explanation than necessary, but I think it helps to be able to think of the core reasoning of underlying arguments, especially when you get to very difficult weaken questions.

  • bedibbedib Member
    15 karma

    For me, (D) is incorrect not just because it is a stretch, like you and others have said above, but also because of the way 'deception' is used in the argument.

    Medicine A has no direct known sleep inducing properties. Hence it is deception to give it in order to help sleep, and hence he is in violation of the ethics code. It does not matter whether the doctor BELIEVES it might have sleep inducing properties or not - even if he does believe so because many other hospital staff administer it to patients for sleep, he is still unintentionally deceiving the patient.
    The argument's implicit assumption says 'no sleep inducing --> deception' whether he intentionally deceives (knowing it can't help the patient) or unintentionally deceives (looks at other staff and thinks oh it might help sleep, but he's still wrong).

    The only way to show he did not defy the principle of avoiding deception, then, is to show it DOES have sleep inducing properties. This is what answer choice (C) shows.

    Hope that helps!

Sign In or Register to comment.