to the top

#12 - Carl: Researchers who perform operations on animals

puppytiff
LSAT Apprentice
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2017 8:32 pm
Points: 9

Hi,

This is a weakening question, attacks Debbie's argument that "pain protocols are unnecessary for human beings." When I read the stimulus, I think that Debbie is making a conclusion based on insufficient support. I think that even if human patients can be told and expected the pain before an operation, doesn't mean the pain protocols are unnecessary. According to Carl's statement, that pain protocols can be used to indicate the risk of pain and ways to alleviate pain, the utility of the pain protocol may include other application, such as alleviating pain, even though the patients expected pain before operation.

And my understanding is addressed in answer choice E,which says "unalleviated pain after an operation tends to delay the healing process". Does this give another reason for using the pain protocol, because the pain protocol can indicate ways to alleviate pain, and without alleviating pain, the healing process will be delayed?

I think D is a very weak answer because it says "some surgical operations performed on infants are painful". I don't think just because of "some" operations are painful gives strong support that pain protocols may be necessary.
Malila Robinson
PowerScore Staff
PowerScore Staff
 
Posts: 274
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 10:41 am
Points: 272

Hi Puppytiff,
As you noted this is a Weaken question that is asking you to attack Debbie's response to Carl. Her response is that the protocols (which explain the risks associated with pain due to the surgery, and what steps will be taken by the doctor to minimize that pain) are unnecessary for people because people, unlike animals, can be told the risks and steps, and can then choose whether to accept them. Her argument requires all people to be able to understand these risks and steps once they are told about them. To hurt her response to Carl you would just need to show that some people might benefit from or need the protocols, since her argument is that no people need the protocols, and Carl's argument is that pain protocols should exist for people.
Answer D provides an situation where pain protocols would be helpful for people because infants are not able to make decisions about surgery. You mentioned the word "some" as the reason why you did not think this was a strong answer. But to weaken Debbie's absolute argument that the pain protocols are not necessary for humans you would just need to point out one instance where they were necessary, which D purports to do, and then you have weakened her argument. Additionally, remember that "some" has a wide definition (1%-100%; at least one to a possibility of all). So here we are saying at least one surgical operation performed on infants is painful, with the possibility that all surgical operations performed on infants are painful.
For Answer E, even if this were true it would not necessarily require pain protocols for humans. It still works with Debbie's argument because she is saying that people can just be told about the pain they can expect after the surgery so it doesn't show why the pain protocols would be needed. Because of that it doesn't necessarily hurt her response to Carl.
Hope that helps!
-Malila