LSAT 102 – Section 3 – Question 11

LSAT 102 - Section 3 - Question 11

June 1998

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:08

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT102 S3 Q11
+LR
+Exp
Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method
Analogy +An
A
2%
159
B
90%
165
C
1%
155
D
7%
159
E
1%
155
126
138
150
 +Easier 147.613 +SubsectionMedium

Carl: Researchers who perform operations on animals for experimental purposes are legally required to complete detailed pain protocols indicating whether the animals will be at risk of pain and, if so, what steps will be taken to minimize or alleviate it. Yet when human beings undergo operations, such protocols are never required. If lawmakers were as concerned about human beings as they seem to be about animals, there would be pain protocols for human beings too.

Debbie: But consider this: a person for whom a doctor wants to schedule surgery can simply be told what pain to expect and can then decide whether or not to undergo the operation. So you see, pain protocols are unnecessary for human beings.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Debbie concludes that pain protocols are unnecessary for humans. As evidence, she points out that humans are able to communicate directly with doctors and decide from there whether they will undergo an operation.

Describe Method of Reasoning
Debbie counters the position held by Carl. She does this by pointing out a crucial difference between human beings and animals: human beings are capable of communicating and deciding for themselves, whereas animals are not.

A
showing that one of the claims on which Carl bases his conclusion is inaccurate
Debbie never claims that any of Carl’s premises are inaccurate. Rather, Debbie questions Carl’s conclusion by pointing out additional evidence Carl’s argument does not consider.
B
pointing out a relevant difference to undermine an analogy on which Carl bases his conclusion
The relevant difference is between that of human beings and animals. Debbie states that human beings are capable of being told about what pain to expect and make their own decisions. The animals in Carl’s analogy are incapable of these things.
C
claiming that Carl’s argument should be rejected because it is based on an appeal to sentimentality rather than on reasoned principles
Carl’s argument is not an appeal to sentimentality. Rather, his argument is an appeal to analogy.
D
drawing an analogy that illustrates a major flaw in Carl’s argument
Debbie does not draw an analogy. Carl draws an analogy between human beings and animals, and Debbie rejects this analogy by pointing out a relevant difference between the two.
E
offering a specific example to demonstrate that Carl’s argument is based on a claim that can be neither confirmed nor disproved
Debbie concludes that pain protocols for human beings are unnecessary.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 102 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply