PT140.S1.Q7 > 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 · lr

SECTION 4 · 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

PASSAGE 4

Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

PrepTest 140 - Section 1 - Question 7

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action