Reading comp PrepTest 147 · Section 3 · Question 21

Correct. Question Type:
Weaken

Strategy Overview:
Review our notes on the last two paragraphs to define the Author's argument, then find an answer that undermines it

Answer Anticipation/Relevant Lines:
In general, Weaken questions in RC more directly attack the argument than they do in LR. In short, you should expect a more straightforward answer in RC.

So what is the Author's argument in Paragraphs 3 and 4? Paragraph 3 introduces a new standard that "should be developed"—clinical equipoise. This standard provides adequate ethical protections while not being "unreasonably" constrictive. In it, instead of each clinician needing to have no opinion of the better treatment—a standard that's "hardly attainable"—there just needs to be an "absence of consensus" (Line 48) in the expert community.

So, in short, the Author argues that a new ethical standard (clinical equipoise) should be developed that relies not on a lack of individual opinion but rather on a lack of consensus. Let's find an answer establishing that this standard wouldn't work.

Answer Explanation:
(Lines 48-50) This answer establishes that most trials are dealing with a consensus treatment. If that's the case, then clinical equipoise couldn't be applied since "[t]he very absence of consensus . . . is what makes clinical equipoise possible." In showing that the Author's standard wouldn't allow for ethical participation in most comparative trials, this answer undermines her argument, making it correct.

Key Takeaway:
In RC Weaken questions, look for answers that more directly attack the reasoning or support. They tend to have much more straightforward answers, so don't twist yourself in knots trying to make an answer work—defer on it, and then circle back only if needed. You'll probably end up finding an answer that's more directly undermining the argument!

Incorrect. (Lines 29-32) The Author implies that this doesn't happen but that it violates theoretical equipoise so, if anything, it supports the development of an alternative ethical standard.

Incorrect. The number of trials or the ethical oversight is out of scope of an argument about what ethical standard should apply.

Incorrect. Who supports which standard doesn't address arguments about the attainability or either or which should be adopted, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. (Lines 21-25) The Author notes that it's common for researchers to have a preference, so it's unclear how many go into a study without such a preference, making this answer potentially about too small of a group to affect the argument. That said, these individuals not developing a preference before the study ends suggests that theoretical equipoise might be more realistic than the Author gives it credit for, which would weaken the Author's argument in Paragraph 2, not the one in Paragraphs 3 and 4 in favor of clinical equipoise.