Reading comp PrepTest 147 · Section 3 · Question 14

Incorrect. (Line 35) The Author specifically notes that one of the two conceptions "should be developed," so she advocates for one over the other. This answer choice misses that advocacy.

Correct. Question Type:
Main Point

Strategy Overview:
Reiterate the main point and then abstract away from it to get at the purpose in writing the passage

Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
The primary purpose of every passage is the same—to convey the main point. As such, we should start by reiterating the main point that we came up with after reading the passage. From there, we can abstract from the content to get the purpose behind the writing.

Here, the main point, as we stated it, was:

Unlike "theoretical equipoise" which is impossible in practice, "clinical equipoise" allows for clinicians to ethically engage in clinical trials despite having a preference for one treatment over another, as long as they recognize a good faith argument from doctors who believe the other treatment is better.

So the Author is arguing for one type of equipoise over another. Why is that? Because the one is "hardly attainable in practice" (Lines 20-21) while the other would "impose rigorous ethical standards . . . without unreasonably constricting" trials (Lines 36-38).

So the Author wrote this passage to argue for one interpretation of an ethical standard over another that's currently employed ("that is typically employed"; Lines 15-16)—let's find an answer reflecting that purpose.

Answer Explanation:
(Lines 15-17; Lines 33-38) The Author notes that the ethical requirement of equipoise as "typically employed" (Line 16) is too strict, and the one that "should be developed" (Line 35) would provide for ethical standards "without unreasonably constricting them" (Lines 37-38). This answer reflects that she's arguing for a more reasonable, less restrictive interpretation than the "unreasonably constrinting" one that is traditionally ("typically") employed, making it the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
When the Author argues for a point, be sure that the answer to this type of Main Point question reflects that advocacy. Answers that are too neutral (e.g., "explain") won't fully capture the purpose of the passage!

Incorrect. (Line 35) The Author advocates for a new standard to be developed, so she doesn't demonstrate that it would get in the way of clinical trials.

Incorrect. (Lines 33-35) First, the Author's main point isn't that clinical researchers should examine their ethics—she wants them to develop and enact a specific change. That said, she argues for another interpretation of equipoise—which accepts the underlying standard of equipoise. So she doesn't really even want them to examine the conceptions underlying their ethics—just the practical applications of them!

Incorrect. (Lines 29-32) This answer is tempting! It does discuss a change that needs to be made. However, the change is to the conception of ethics, not to the scientific methods. The stimulus suggests at the end of Paragraph 2 that the clinical methods are already yielding results—they're just doing so by not fully adhering to the theoretical ethics that they say they do.