- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8917
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Fri Apr 15, 2016 10:48 am
#23103
Complete Question Explanation
Method of Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (B)
Carl points out that while extensive pain protocols and regulations govern experimentation on animals, no such protocols are required for humans who undergo operations. He states that if lawmakers were as concerned about humans as they are about animals, there would exist pain protocols for humans, which infers (through the contrapositive) his unstated conclusion that lawmakers are less concerned about humans than about animals.
Debbie focuses on the obvious, which is that humans are in a better position to understand and decide for themselves whether to undergo a situation involving pain. She concludes that pain protocols are not necessary. Debbie's argument is based on implying that humans are very different from animals in an important way, which is equivalent to attacking an analogy between humans and animals.
You are asked how Debbie attempts to counter Carl's argument, so you need to focus on the fact that she introduces information that calls into question the analogy between humans and animals.
As a point of interest, Debbie's response is referred to as an "attempt" because Debbie does not successfully counter Carl's argument, and because Carl does not necessarily assume that humans and animals are analogous. Whether or not humans are in a better position to understand and make decisions, a failure to create pain protocol legislation could still signify a relative lack of concern for humans on the part of legislators. And, Carl might not assume that humans and animals are similar, because he might just believe that pain protocol would be created to protect any organism for which one has concern, regardless of that organism's intellectual faculties. However, in two-part stimuli you should let the characters battle it out for you, and not worry too much about deeper analysis unless the question demands it.
Answer choice (A) Debbie does not demonstrate that any claim in Carl's argument is inaccurate, so this choice is wrong. Carl may or may not make the assumption that experiments on animals are analogous to operations on humans, but assumptions are unstated, while claims are explicitly stated.
Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. Debbie supposes that Carl's argument is based on the assumption that operations on humans and experiments on animals represent analogous situations, and Debbie does undermine that possible assumption by pointing out that humans have the ability to decide for themselves.
Answer choice (C) Maybe it is true that Carl's argument is based on sentimentality, but Debbie never mentions the issue, so this choice is wrong. Furthermore, it would be inappropriate to criticize Carl's argument on the basis that it is sentimental. Since Carl is attempting to demonstrate that legislators demonstrate a lack of concern, which is a sentiment, a certain degree of sentimental consideration is not only appropriate but also probably required.
Answer choice (D) Debbie does not draw an analogy, she attacks an analogy that she supposes Carl is assuming.
Answer choice (E) Debbie addresses what she supposes Carl assumes-- an analogy between humans and animals. Debbie does not respond directly to any of Carl's claims, so this response is incorrect. Furthermore, Debbie's argument is based on a generality, not a specific example. Specifics involve data or observations about an actual or alleged event, person, etc. Hypothetical situations and generalities such as the abstraction of what may happen in a surgeon's office are not specifics, and should not be referred to as specifics.
Method of Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (B)
Carl points out that while extensive pain protocols and regulations govern experimentation on animals, no such protocols are required for humans who undergo operations. He states that if lawmakers were as concerned about humans as they are about animals, there would exist pain protocols for humans, which infers (through the contrapositive) his unstated conclusion that lawmakers are less concerned about humans than about animals.
Debbie focuses on the obvious, which is that humans are in a better position to understand and decide for themselves whether to undergo a situation involving pain. She concludes that pain protocols are not necessary. Debbie's argument is based on implying that humans are very different from animals in an important way, which is equivalent to attacking an analogy between humans and animals.
You are asked how Debbie attempts to counter Carl's argument, so you need to focus on the fact that she introduces information that calls into question the analogy between humans and animals.
As a point of interest, Debbie's response is referred to as an "attempt" because Debbie does not successfully counter Carl's argument, and because Carl does not necessarily assume that humans and animals are analogous. Whether or not humans are in a better position to understand and make decisions, a failure to create pain protocol legislation could still signify a relative lack of concern for humans on the part of legislators. And, Carl might not assume that humans and animals are similar, because he might just believe that pain protocol would be created to protect any organism for which one has concern, regardless of that organism's intellectual faculties. However, in two-part stimuli you should let the characters battle it out for you, and not worry too much about deeper analysis unless the question demands it.
Answer choice (A) Debbie does not demonstrate that any claim in Carl's argument is inaccurate, so this choice is wrong. Carl may or may not make the assumption that experiments on animals are analogous to operations on humans, but assumptions are unstated, while claims are explicitly stated.
Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. Debbie supposes that Carl's argument is based on the assumption that operations on humans and experiments on animals represent analogous situations, and Debbie does undermine that possible assumption by pointing out that humans have the ability to decide for themselves.
Answer choice (C) Maybe it is true that Carl's argument is based on sentimentality, but Debbie never mentions the issue, so this choice is wrong. Furthermore, it would be inappropriate to criticize Carl's argument on the basis that it is sentimental. Since Carl is attempting to demonstrate that legislators demonstrate a lack of concern, which is a sentiment, a certain degree of sentimental consideration is not only appropriate but also probably required.
Answer choice (D) Debbie does not draw an analogy, she attacks an analogy that she supposes Carl is assuming.
Answer choice (E) Debbie addresses what she supposes Carl assumes-- an analogy between humans and animals. Debbie does not respond directly to any of Carl's claims, so this response is incorrect. Furthermore, Debbie's argument is based on a generality, not a specific example. Specifics involve data or observations about an actual or alleged event, person, etc. Hypothetical situations and generalities such as the abstraction of what may happen in a surgeon's office are not specifics, and should not be referred to as specifics.
If there weren't, then there would be no point to using them to support a non-hypothetical argument.
