LSAT 140 – Section 1 – Question 07

LSAT 140 - Section 1 - Question 07

December 2013

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

Target time: 1:00

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
PT140 S1 Q07
+LR
Main conclusion or main point +MC
Causal Reasoning +CausR
Net Effect +NetEff
Value Judgment +ValJudg
A
1%
153
B
12%
158
C
1%
153
D
1%
159
E
86%
166
131
143
155
 +Medium 148.137 +SubsectionMedium

Video of JY doing this

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

Ethicist: Robert Gillette has argued that because a thorough knowledge of genetics would enable us to cure the over 3,000 inherited disorders that affect humanity, deciphering the human genetic code will certainly benefit humanity despite its enormous cost. Gillette’s argument is not persuasive, however, because he fails to consider that such knowledge might ultimately harm human beings more than it would benefit them.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Robert Gillette’s argument isn’t convincing because he doesn’t consider that decoding the human genetic code might harm people more than it helps them.

Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the ethicist’s disagreement with Robert Gillette’s hypothesis that deciphering the human genetic code would benefit humanity. The ethicist ultimately concludes that Gillette’s argument is “not persuasive.”

A
Gillette’s argument wrongly assumes that deciphering the genetic code will lead to cures for genetic disorders.
This misstates the conclusion. The ethicist agrees that decoding the human genetic code could cure genetic disorders but argues that, despite this benefit, it might still do more harm than good overall. Since Gillette has not considered this possibility, his argument is flawed.
B
Deciphering the genetic code might ultimately harm human beings more than benefit them.
This is a premise. The ethicist’s main conclusion is that Gillette's argument isn't convincing. The possibility that deciphering the genetic code “might ultimately harm human beings more than benefit them” supports this conclusion by explaining why Gillette’s argument is flawed.
C
Because of its possible negative consequences, genetic research should not be conducted.
The ethicist does not make this claim. The ethicist argues that Robert Gillette's argument is not convincing but does not say that genetic research as a whole should be stopped just because Gillette did not fully consider the consequences of decoding the human genetic code.
D
Gillette’s claim that a thorough knowledge of genetics would enable us to cure over 3,000 disorders is overstated.
The ethicist does not make this claim. The ethicist agrees that understanding genetics could cure over 3,000 genetic disorders but argues that the research could also have negative consequences, possibly causing more harm than good despite its potential to cure so many disorders.
E
Gillette’s argument is unconvincing because it ignores certain possible consequences of genetic research.
This states the main conclusion. The ethicist argues that Gillette’s argument is flawed because he ignores the possibility that decoding the human genetic code could ultimately harm humanity. Since Gillette didn’t consider this potential consequence, his argument is unconvincing.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 140 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply