PT122.S4.Q18 > Question

SECTION 1 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25

SECTION 2 · lr

SECTION 3 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6

PASSAGE 2

Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13

PASSAGE 3

Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20

PASSAGE 4

Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 4 · lr

The author concludes that when a physician’s duty conflicts with a patient’s right, the patient’s right should prevail. He supports this by saying that the patient’s right is a basic right, and not honoring it would risk treating the patient as an object rather than a person.

The author concludes that the patient’s right should prevail because it’s a basic right, but his premises never establish when a right should prevail over a duty.

To get from his premises to his conclusion, the author must either assume that a person’s basic rights should never be violated, or else assume that a person’s rights should never be violated if doing so would risk treating that person as an object.

This may be true, but it doesn’t tell us anything about when a person’s rights should or should not prevail. (A) simply describes another right that patients have; it doesn’t prove that a patient’s right to be fully informed should prevail over a doctor’s duty.

The fact that some actions are right regardless of their consequences does not prove that a patient’s right to be fully informed should prevail over a doctor’s duty. (B) could just as easily support the idea that a doctor’s duty should always prevail.

Even if objects don’t have rights and denying a patient’s right to be fully informed risks treating the patient as an object, this doesn’t prove that the right should prevail over a doctor’s duty. (C) doesn’t explain why some rights should take priority over certain duties.

Because a patient’s right to be fully informed is a basic right, (D) establishes that this right should never be violated. This guarantees the conclusion that this right should prevail over a physician’s duty.

Even if this right is stronger than other rights, (E) still doesn’t explain why it should prevail over a doctor’s duty. Just because it’s the strongest right doesn’t prove that a patient’s right to be fully informed should override a doctor’s duty.

PrepTest 122 - Section 4 - Question 18

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action