Logical reasoning PrepTest 158 · Section 3 · Question 7

This would strengthen the case against Dr. Faris. In both legal and everyday usage, deception requires the deceiving party to knowingly misrepresent that truth. This answer choice shows that Dr. Faris was fully aware that Medication A isn't known to help patients sleep, which would strengthen the case against Dr. Faris. 

The committee changing the hospital's ethics code is immaterial to this argument. This ethicist argues that Dr. Faris violated the current code, as presently constructed. Even if the revisions are made, and even if those revisions change the policy against deception — neither of which is inevitable — that wouldn't make Dr. Faris any less guilty of violating the current code.

Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
An ethicist notes that this hospital, understandably, has a rule against deceiving patients. Dr. Faris, however, told a patient that Medication A would help the patient sleep, even though Medication A isn't known to have that effect. Although the patient's sleep improved, the ethicist concludes that the nefarious Dr. Faris broke the hospital's rule against deceiving patients.

Strategy Overview:

1. Argument or facts? Always argument, so identify premises and conclusions of argument
2. Anticipate why the premises are not enough to show that the conclusion is true
   1. Causal argument? Look for answer choice that:
      1. Shows possible alternate cause
      2. Shows cause without effect
      3. Shows effect without cause
      4. Shows the cause and effect are reversed
   2. If not causal argument, anticipate ways to worsen problem with argument
3. Use anticipations to select the answer choice that, if true, would weaken argument

Answer Anticipation:
On a Weaken question, we should start by identifying the conclusion and premises of the argument before determining why the argument is flawed. This conclusion states, "Dr. Faris is clearly in violation of the ethics code" (the word "So" indicates that this statement is conclusory). An experienced LSATer will make sure to fill in any ambiguities in that conclusion. They'll identify that the ethicist's main point is that Dr. Faris is guilty of violating the code against deceiving patients in the hospital. The premise — the only reason the ethicist musters in favor of Dr. Faris's deception — is that Dr. Faris's told a patient that Medication A would help the patient's sleep, despite Medication A having no known sleep-inducing effects.

With the argument deconstructed, we can get to the business of identifying the argument's flaw. Savvy LSAT-takers will often look for key terms or ideas in the conclusion not mentioned in the premises. This conclusion includes the concept of "deceiving" a patient by discussing Dr. Faris's code violation. The evidence, however, does not explicitly spell out that Dr. Faris's actions constitute deceiving a patient. We could look for an answer choice that exposed this equivocation between premise and conclusion. Perhaps by showing that Dr. Faris would need to know Medication A had no known soporific properties and therefore didn't knowingly deceive his patient.

Another thing attentive LSATers will notice, especially on Weaken questions, is an argument's concession. This ethicist concedes that the patient's sleep did improve after taking Medication A. Many times, the correct answer on a Weaken question will relate to such a concession. Maybe Dr. Faris believed that, even though Mediation A isn't known to have sleep-aiding effects, it would still help the patient sleep through some other means, like the placebo effect or by treating some other ailment the patient had. That would suggest that Dr. Faris thought Medication A could help the patient sleep, perhaps meaning the doctor wasn't actually deceiving the patient.

Answer Choice Explanation:
This answer choice weakens the case against Dr. Faris by showing that the doctor may have reasonably expected Medication A to help the patient sleep. As discussed in the Answer Anticipation section, this argument features an equivocation between the premises and the conclusion. As described by the premises, Dr. Faris's actions might constitute deception, especially if the premises don't explicitly define what would constitute deception. Perhaps to deceive a patient, Dr. Faris would need to knowingly misrepresent the truth. If Dr. Faris had a reasonable expectation that Medication A could indirectly lead to sleep, perhaps Dr. Faris didn't deliberately lie to a patient, which would weaken the case against the doctor.

Key Takeaway:
Arguments on the LSAT frequently err when they feature undefined terms in the conclusion. In this case, it was the term "deceive" that was never adequately defined. In such arguments, the correct answer will address the equivocation between the premises and the undefined term. On Strengthen questions, expect the correct answer to suggest why the premises were enough to establish the new term. On Weaken questions, expect the correct answer to show why the premises weren't enough to establish the new term.

Sure, and these doctors may also be guilty of violating the hospital's code against lying to patients. A practice being widespread doesn't necessarily exculpate people who engage in the practice.

This is irrelevant to the ethicist's argument. The issue is whether Dr. Faris's claim that Medication A would help a patient sleep constitutes deceiving a patient. The other medications the patient may have been taking at the time and whether Dr. Faris knew about those medications have no bearing on whether Dr. Faris's claims about Medication A were deceptive.