#5- Lawyer: In a risky surgical procedure that is performed
10 posts • Page 1 of 1
Please post your questions below!
This Supporter Strengthen Answer type seeking Question,
conclusion: functions do not resume following the procedure ----> the medical team is technically guilty of manslaughter.
Rest of KEY premises: 1. doctors deliberately stop the patient's life functions
2. when the procedure is completed, body's temperature is quickly restored.
I don't see how correct answer choice D) deliberately bringing cessation of person life function cessation is permanent,
does a job of filling in the weakness link.
"The cessation is permanent" means the same thing as "life functions do not return". In other words, the person is dead. So, if you deliberately stop the life functions and the patient dies, then you are guilty of manslaughter - that is what we need to strengthen.
Answer D gives us that: if you deliberately stop life functions, and the patient dies, then you are guilty of manslaughter. It also gives us more than we needed (if you are guilty of manslaughter, then you deliberately stopped their life functions and they died), but that's okay, because we weren't asked what was necessary to strengthen the argument, only what would strengthen it.
Look for an answer that makes "guilty of manslaughter" necessary and makes "deliberately stop the life functions" and "functions do not return" sufficient, and you'll have made the link you needed to make.
Adam M. Tyson
PowerScore LSAT, GRE, ACT and SAT Instructor
Follow me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/LSATadam
Is answer choice A wrong because it only says that the doctor "could be" charged?
(A) is a bit tricky because it's looking to see if test takers have any knowledge of the US criminal justice system. Charging a defendant is merely the first step to obtaining a conviction/guilty verdict, and certainly doesn't mean that a person is guilty. In fact, prosecutors routinely "overcharge" defendants in the hopes of obtaining plea deals to lesser crimes.
You are correct that the "could" should be a big hint as to why (A) is incorrect. The conclusion of the stimulus is certain, while the answer choice is uncertain, which means it is very unlikely to help much, if at all, to making the conclusion true. Contrast that to (D), which gives us certainty, as well as circumstances much more closely aligned with those in the stimulus than the vaguer ones in (A).
Hope this helps!
I don't perceive how to effectively answer d) intentionally bringing an end of individual life work.
Carries out a responsibility of filling in the shortcoming join.
Since it is hoping to check whether test takers have any information about the criminal equity framework.
You may need to rephrase your question.
Outside knowledge of criminal law is unnecessary to answer LSAT questions.
The question asks you to justify the lawyer's analysis. The lawyer claimed that if the doctors stop the patient's life functions and cannot restore them, the doctors have committed manslaughter. Thus, you need to find a choice that confirms that analysis.
None of the other choices start off at stopping life functions as a sufficient condition and end with manslaughter as the result. (D) provides the required rule: Cessation permanent Manslaughter.
(D) does give you a little more: Cessation permanent Manslaughter,
but that's okay.
Is B wrong because the answer is too wrong and only says the doctors CAN be guilty, not that they are guilty?
There are a few major problems with (B): first, a sufficient condition given is "very high risk of patient's death" versus the "risky" given in the stimulus, so we're not even sure if the second conditional would even apply to this procedure; secondly it doesn't allow us to draw a certain conclusion as it only says "can be guilty" versus the definite "are guilty" in the stimulus; lastly and most importantly, the sufficient and necessary conditions are reversed from what we would want, as "guilty of manslaughter" should be a necessary condition, not a sufficient one as given here, while dying should be sufficient, not necessary.
In short, the stimulus needs:
Deliberately cause life functions to cease permanently Guilty of Manslaughter, (answer choice (D))
while (B) gives us:
May Be Guilty of Manslaughter Patient Dies
Hope this clears things up!
I got D correct, but wanted to confirm my reasoning for ruling out A and B since it was a bit different than the reasons discussed above.
I ruled out A because I thought that "any time" was too broad, because there are plenty of surgical procedures that can result in death. Plus, the stimulus says the doctors can be charged because they deliberately stopped the life functions, not just because it was a procedure that could result in the patient's death. Also, A says the medical team "could be" charged, not that they are guilty of or should be charged so I thought that was a bit weak.
Similarly, I thought B was too broad/different compared to the stimulus, because B addresses medical procedures known to carry a very high risk of death. The stimulus, meanwhile, addresses the situation in which the doctors deliberately stop the patient's life functions, like in this one specific procedure, but not many others. Also, the stimulus doesn't say that the procedure has a high risk, just that it's risky, as James mentioned above.
Are these fair reasons to rule those two out? Is it okay to use being too broad as an issue in these specific cases even though, in general, principles can go beyond what is necessary (as D does, in fact, do)?
Thank you in advance for confirming!!
10 posts • Page 1 of 1