PrepTest 115

Incorrect. Jeff does bring up the idea of empathy, but he doesn't use that empathy to justify his conclusion. In fact, the empathy is more related to the currently proposed regulations, not his amended version.

Incorrect. Jeff's argument establishes that other mammals do feel pain, so there's no need for a method of determining that.

Incorrect. Jeff doesn't want to prevent certain kinds of animal experimentation, he wants to protect animals that can feel pain from any experimentation. As such, this answer is too limited in addressing only some experimentation to justify his reasoning.

Incorrect. Jeff doesn't reach a conclusion about how scientists should feel, but rather on what legislation should do.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument/Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed/Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
J: Regulations propose a ban on experimenting on certain animals, but studies show all mammals feel as much pain as those certain animals, so the regulations should protect all mammals.

M: Unimportant stuff about diminishing quality of life.

Answer Anticipation:
First, let's talk about Miranda's statements. They are in response to Jeff's argument, but the question stem asks specifically about a principle that justifies Jeff's reasoning. As such, there's no reason to waste time considering her rebuttal! It's not going to be relevant to the correct answer. That said, don't skip over reading it completely—knowing what it talks about will let us eliminate answers that address her argument instead of Jeff's.

With that out of the way, we should focus on Jeff's argument. With Strengthen (Principle) questions, it's generally the case that a situation is described and a judgment reached, and the correct answer justifies that judgment based on the described details.

Here, Jeff's conclusion is that all mammals should be protected by regulations on animal testing. Why does he believe that? Because all mammals are capable of feeling the same amount of pain as the animals that are included in the ban.

So to justify that conclusion, we should look for an answer that connects feeling pain to being protected from animal experimentation.

Answer Explanation:
This answer justifies Jeff's conclusion based on the details he raises. While his premise brings up relative pain felt by certain animals and other mammals, that establishes that all of the animals in question can feel pain. If that's sufficient justification to prohibit experimenting on them as this answer choice states, then Jeff's argument is valid.

Key Takeaway:
Strengthen (Principle) questions usually reach a judgment in the conclusion based on details in the premises. Don't overcomplicate these questions, even when they're in the "difficult" range of the section—if you know what you're looking for, this question type is generally more straightforward than others.