- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8917
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Sat Feb 04, 2017 11:16 am
#32455
Complete Question Explanation
Main Point. The correct answer choice is (E)
This stimulus is similar in structure to the stimulus from Question #5. In both cases, the author uses the “some people say...” technique, concludes the other view is incorrect, and then offers one premise in support of the conclusion.
Here, the ethicist offers up the view of Robert Gillette. Gillette has argued that the enormous cost of deciphering the human genetic code is worth the investment, because this knowledge would enable us to cure more than 3,000 inherited disorders that afflict human beings. Predictably, the ethicist disagrees with Gillette, concluding that “Gillette’s argument is not persuasive.”
In support of this conclusion, the ethicist says only that Gillette has not considered the possibility that the knowledge gained from deciphering the human genetic code might hurt humanity more than it would help it.
The question stem identifies this as a Main Point question. Our prephrase is that the ethicist concludes that Gillette’s argument is not persuasive. Notice the limits of this statement. The ethicist did not conclude that Gillette is wrong, but merely that Gillette has not fully supported his conclusion.
Answer choice (A): As mentioned above, the ethicist does not reach a substantive conclusion about whether deciphering the genetic code will lead to cures for genetic disorders. In legal parlance, the conclusion was not on the merits, but procedural. It was about Gillette’s method of reasoning, rather than the truth of his conclusion.
Answer choice (B): This was the premise offered in support of the ethicist’s conclusion.
Answer choice (C): Although the ethicist did reference the possibility of negative consequences, the conclusion was about the quality of Gillette’s argumentation, not about whether genetic research should be conducted.
Answer choice (D): The ethicist’s problem with Gillette’s argument was not the claim that genetic research would enable us to cure more than 3,000 disorders. The ethicist does not address this claim.
Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice, because it restates the ethicist’s conclusion. Interestingly, this answer also restates the argument’s premise. However, despite its extra content, this answer choice is correct because it contains what the question stem asks for, a restatement of the conclusion.
Main Point. The correct answer choice is (E)
This stimulus is similar in structure to the stimulus from Question #5. In both cases, the author uses the “some people say...” technique, concludes the other view is incorrect, and then offers one premise in support of the conclusion.
Here, the ethicist offers up the view of Robert Gillette. Gillette has argued that the enormous cost of deciphering the human genetic code is worth the investment, because this knowledge would enable us to cure more than 3,000 inherited disorders that afflict human beings. Predictably, the ethicist disagrees with Gillette, concluding that “Gillette’s argument is not persuasive.”
In support of this conclusion, the ethicist says only that Gillette has not considered the possibility that the knowledge gained from deciphering the human genetic code might hurt humanity more than it would help it.
The question stem identifies this as a Main Point question. Our prephrase is that the ethicist concludes that Gillette’s argument is not persuasive. Notice the limits of this statement. The ethicist did not conclude that Gillette is wrong, but merely that Gillette has not fully supported his conclusion.
Answer choice (A): As mentioned above, the ethicist does not reach a substantive conclusion about whether deciphering the genetic code will lead to cures for genetic disorders. In legal parlance, the conclusion was not on the merits, but procedural. It was about Gillette’s method of reasoning, rather than the truth of his conclusion.
Answer choice (B): This was the premise offered in support of the ethicist’s conclusion.
Answer choice (C): Although the ethicist did reference the possibility of negative consequences, the conclusion was about the quality of Gillette’s argumentation, not about whether genetic research should be conducted.
Answer choice (D): The ethicist’s problem with Gillette’s argument was not the claim that genetic research would enable us to cure more than 3,000 disorders. The ethicist does not address this claim.
Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice, because it restates the ethicist’s conclusion. Interestingly, this answer also restates the argument’s premise. However, despite its extra content, this answer choice is correct because it contains what the question stem asks for, a restatement of the conclusion.