Logical reasoning PrepTest 102 · Section 3 · Question 12

Flawed/Flawed

Weaken Questions

C: Animal researchers have to develop pain protocols to minimize or alleviate pain, but doctors don’t do this for people, so they should. D: People can be informed of pain risks and decide to take that on, so they’re unnecessary.

For this argument, we’re tasked with weakening Debbie’s rebuttal. There are two angles we can take on this based on the structure of her argument, and both lead us in the same direction. First, as we noted in the previous question, Debbie’s argument relies on undermining Carl’s reliance on treating the situation of humans and animals as analogous. Debbie points out that the two have a relevant difference, thus calling into question whether they should be treated similarly. Therefore, anything that calls the relevance of that difference into question, or highlights how it’s less important than the similarities will undermine her response. Second, Debbie’s conclusion uses strong language - something is “unnecessary for human beings.” As such, any answer that suggests that pain protocols would be necessary for even a single human being - say, one that’s unconscious before the procedure and thus can’t make a decision about accepting the risk of pain - would undermine her conclusion. In both cases, we’re looking for something that makes at least some human cases similar to animal cases in that the individual can’t make their own decision.