PT5.S1.Q18 - Mary, a veterinary student, has been assigned

Comments

• Daniel.Sieradzki Member Sage ⭐

  May 2017 edited May 2017 2301 karma

  Very good question!

  What do we know about the experiment? All we are told is that the dog will be anesthetized and subjected to drastic blood loss.

  Answer choice A talks about pain. Are we told anything about pain? No. This is a classic example of the LSAT taking advantage of our assumptions. When we are told about a horrible experiment like this, we imagine a painful one. That is not necessarily the case! The experiment is horrible, but it may not be painful. We are not told anything about pain or suffering. For all we know, the dog experiences a peaceful death.

  Answer choice B makes sense. We are told that Mary is just observing the dog and that she is a student. Thus, it seems reasonable that this is just some lesson or exercise. Therefore, this experiment does not appear to be of any immediate help to anyone. It is very unlikely that it is going to save any lives in the near future. In fact, it is killing an animal. Your point about the stimulus not mentioning people is a great one! The fact that the stimulus does not say anything about helping people is one of the reasons we can confidently pick answer choice B.

  Does that make sense? Please let me know if you need additional clarification.
• akistotle Member ⭐ 🍌🍌

  May 2017 edited May 2017 9382 karma

  In addition to @"Daniel.Sieradzki" 's comment, I think (A) is wrong also because the experiment isn't "gratuitously" causing something. It has a good reason (purpose): observing the consequences of shock.

  (B) says: Justifiable --> Immediately assist in saving animal's lives or immediately assist in protecting people's health
  Contrapositive: /Immediately assist in saving animal's lives and /immediately assist in protecting people's health --> /Justifiable

  We can infer from the passage that the experiment does not immediately save animal's lives. Also, it doesn't immediately help protecting the health of a person either. Therefore, it's not justifiable.
• Broccoli Core Member

  January 2018 352 karma

  @akistotle Do you know why D is not correct?
• akistotle Member ⭐ 🍌🍌

  January 2018 9382 karma

  @Broccoli180 said:
  @akistotle Do you know why D is not correct?

  Could you tell me why you think D is ok? I didn't finish reading this answer choice because Mary is not a practicing veterinarian.
• 1 Like

  Broccoli Core Member

  January 2018 352 karma

  @akistotle OHHHHHHHHHHhHhHhHh..... smart.
• nc______ Alum Member

  March 2018 42 karma

  I understand why each of the wrong answer choices are incorrect, but not why (B) is the correct answer. Nowhere in the passage does it state protecting the lives of other animals or people. Are we assuming this because veterinarians probably want to save animals?
• HopefullyHLS Member

  May 2021 445 karma

  Also got fooled and picked D, but indeed Mary is not a practicing veterinarian, but a veterinary student.

  Though, I picked E on my second try. Is E wrong because it says the SOLE intention? We know that Mary definitely had the intention to kill the dog, as she knew that the dog would die, but Mary's purpose was to gain results for her experiment.

  If Mary just took the dog, put it in a bag and threw it into the sea, this would be a scenario where her sole intention would be to kill the dog. But this was not her sole intention in our experiment, right?
• 1 Like

  cicero711 Member

  November 2021 8 karma

  Not A - the experiment is not "gratuitous."
  Not C - "experimenting on animals" is too general. This case deals with causing death.
  Not D - Mary is not a "practicing veterinarian."
  Not E - Death is not the "sole intention."

  B - not "immediately assisting in saving several animal's lives" --> not justifiable