Logical reasoning PrepTest 122 · Section 1 · Question 24

Incorrect. There's no indication of how frequently there's a lack of knowledge of the best treatment for a given emergency. The argument assumes that there are situations where the best treatment isn't known, but not that these happen often.

Incorrect. This is about knowledge, not consent. While the two are related, they're not the same.

Incorrect. First, this sets up a necessary condition for nonconsensual research to be performed, whereas the argument would require a sufficient condition for doing so. Additionally, the stimulus talks about finding out the best treatment for a medical condition through this nonconsensual research—that's potentially going to benefit future patients, but it's not highly likely to help the current patient.

Incorrect. This answer is too broad in dealin with any situation where the best treatment option is unknown, not just emergency situations as in the stimulus.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Figuring out the best treatment in an emergency requires sometimes skipping over consent in an emergency. So nonconsensual medical research should sometimes be allowed.

Answer Anticipation:
There's a huge key to finding the gap in this argument—the conclusion draws a judgment in saying that something should" be allowed. Whenever such a judgment is drawn, it must be established by what criteria such a judgment/recommendation can be made.

Here, it's been established that it's generally wrong to perform nonconsensual medical research. In reaching a conclusion that it's sometimes acceptable, there must be something that outweighs the importance of consent. The Ethicist puts forward a potential reason—that doing so is required to develop knowledge of the best treatments in an emergency.

However, there's no principle established that that consideration is more important than the patient's right to consent to procedures. Without such a principle established, there's no way to use that to justify the conclusion. The correct answer will therefore likely establish such a principle.

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes a principle that justifies the Ethicist's conclusion based on the premise. If there are no cases where the patient's right to give informed consent is outweighed by the benefits of research, the Ethicist's argument falls apart.

Key Takeaway:
Conclusions that make a judgment or conclude something should/ought to happen require a principle that establishes the criteria under which such a judgment can be made. However, these arguments frequently fail to do so. These pseudo—principle questions will often have answers that read like principles, connecting the details from the premises to the judgment in the conclusion.