Logical reasoning PrepTest 118 · Section 1 · Question 13

Incorrect. The conditional rule doesn't establish anything about the relative benefits of a study controlling whether it should be done, so the money being better spent elsewhere is out of scope.

Incorrect. If anything, this answer suggests that the risks aren't all that large, thus undermining the argument.

Incorrect. The conditional established in the stimulus doesn't deal with informed consent, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. This answer is attempting to get you to pick it by making you think that it establishes the study won't reveal information about a medical condition, since hormonal imbalances themselves aren't a medical condition. However, it states that they can cause a medical condition, and learning about a cause of a medical condition can provide information about that medical condition. This answer doesn't successfully establish that one of the sufficient conditions is met, so it's incorrect.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen

Stimulus Summary:
Medical research permissible → Likely to reveal info about a medical condition AND Known to pose only minimal risk
A study wants to give hormones to a bunch of kids to learn about diseases caused by hormonal imbalances, so it shouldn't be permitted.

Answer Anticipation:
The argument lays out a rule establishing necessary conditions for research to be permissible, and then it concludes that specific research isn't permissible. To make it easier to apply the rule, we should take the contrapositive to match up with the conclusion:

not Likely to reveal info OR not Known to pose only minimal risk → not Permissible

So to reach the conclusion that this research shouldn't be allowed, it needs to be established either that it isn't likely to reveal info about a medical condition, or that it isn't known to pose only a minimal risk to the subjects. Since it does seem as if this would provide some information about hormonal imbalances, the correct answer will likely state that loading kids up with hormones isn't known to pose a minimal risk to them (shocker), but we should stay flexible for either sufficient condition to be established in the answers.

Answer Explanation:
If the long-term effects of HGH are unknown, then it can't be said that the study is known to pose a minimal risk to its subjects, triggering the conditional and justifying the conclusion that the study should be prohibited.

Key Takeaway:
When a flawed argument applies a conditional rule, there's a good chance that it is flawed in that it features a term shift between the information presented and the conditional itself. Check the details to see where that gap is, and then find an answer that addresses it.