In these questions each answer choice contains a principle that acts as
an additional, broad premise that supports or proves the conclusion.
Functionally, five different principles are applied to the situation in the
stimulus. While reading the stimulus, you must think in abstract terms
and identify an underlying idea or belief that can be used to draw the
conclusion in the stimulus. Then, as you analyze the answer choices, tie
this idea or belief to the structure of the author’s argument and ask
yourself, “If this answer is true, does it support or prove the
conclusion?”
Now read an example of this type of question and get a better sense of
how the inclusion of the Principle concept affects the problem. Please
take a moment to complete the following question:
1. Jeff: Proposed regulations concerning the use of
animals in scientific experimentation would
prohibit experimentation on those species that
humans empathize with: dogs and horses, for
example. But extensive neurological research
on mammals shows that they are all capable of
feeling pain, just as dogs and horses are. Hence,
this proposal should be extended to all
experimentation on all mammals.
Miranda: Yet the issue of pain is not the crux of the
matter. Experimentation on any nonhuman
animal undermines respect for life itself
because only humans are capable of consenting
to an experiment. Since any activity that
undermines respect for life diminishes the
quality of all of our lives, the new regulations
should ban all such experimentation.
Which one of the following is a principle that, if
established, would best support Jeff’s conclusion?
(A) Regulations on the use of animals in scientific
experimentation should be primarily
concerned with respecting the feelings of the
humans who will perform those experiments.
(B) Whatever means are used to determine whether
dogs and horses feel pain should also be used
to determine whether other animals feel pain.
(C) Only those experiments on animals that are
known to cause those animals pain should be
prohibited.
(D) Scientists who perform experiments on animals
should empathize with any mammal as much
as they empathize with dogs or horses.
(E) Scientific experimentation should be
prohibited on any creature that is capable of
feeling pain.
Like the previous question, this is a lengthy and time-consuming
problem. Regardless, do not be intimidated by the size of the question—
some of the longest LSAT problems have been fairly easy.
The question stem in this problem asks for a principle that would
support Jeff’s conclusion. As such, this is a Strengthen-PR question, and
you can ignore Miranda’s argument since it appears after Jeff’s
argument.
Jeff’s argument can be analyzed as follows:
Premise: Proposed regulations concerning the use of animals
in scientific experimentation would prohibit
experimentation on those species that humans
empathize with: dogs and horses, for example.
Premise: But extensive neurological research on mammals
shows that they are all capable of feeling pain, just as
dogs and horses are.
Conclusion: Hence, this proposal should be extended to all
experimentation on all mammals.
On the basis that all mammals can feel pain, Jeff concludes that the
experimentation prohibition should be extended to all mammals. In
drawing this conclusion, Jeff goes beyond the parameters of the first
premise, which indicates that empathy was the basis for the proposed
experimentation prohibition. Jeff’s conclusion ignores the empathy
factor, and uses just the pain element to arrive at the conclusion. Most
students find the argument relatively easy to understand, but it is
important to separate out the exact reason that underlies Jeff’s position
before moving on to the answer choices.
In Strengthen-PR questions, the correct answer provides a broad
premise that can be added to the argument to help prove the conclusion.
In this problem, you must select the principle that, when applied to the
specific situation in the stimulus, helps prove that scientific
experimentation on all mammals should be banned.
Answer choice (A): While this principle provides minor support for the
prohibition discussed in the first premise, this principle would not apply
to Jeff’s conclusion since Jeff did not use empathy as the basis for his
conclusion.
Answer choice (B): Jeff’s argument is not focused on the “means used
to determine whether dogs and horses feel pain.” From his second
premise he knows that all mammals feel pain; they way in which that is
determined is not relevant to his conclusion. Thus, this answer choice
does not help support Jeff’s conclusion.
Answer choice (C): This answer attempts to draw you into a Mistaken
Reversal. The principle in the answer choice states:
EP = experiment should be prohibited
KP = experiment known to cause pain to animals
EP----------> KP
The assumption in the argument is that scientific experimentation on
animals causes pain, which meets the necessary condition in the
relationship above:
KP
However, the combination of the principle in the answer choice and the
necessary condition from the stimulus does not yield any conclusion.
Hence, this answer does not support Jeff’s conclusion.
Answer choice (D): This is the most frequently selected incorrect
answer choice, with about one in four students selecting (D). As
previously discussed, Jeff’s conclusion is not based on empathizing with
animals. Adding this principle to the argument does not help support the
conclusion that the proposal should be extended to all mammals;
instead, this principle would support the conclusion that researchers
should empathize with all mammals. Since this is a different conclusion
than the one in the argument, this answer choice is incorrect.
Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer. The principle in the
answer, when combined with the premise, provides overwhelming
support for the conclusion. As with many principles, the one in this
answer choice is conditional:
KP = experiment known to cause pain to any creature
EP = experiment should be prohibited
KP------------> EP
From the premise we know that all mammals are capable of feeling
pain, so the sufficient condition is met with respect to mammals (M):
KPM
By applying the Repeat conditional form, we have support for Jeff’s
conclusion that experimentation on all mammals should be prohibited:
EPM
Thus, if this principle is established, it would provide a great deal of
support for Jeff’s position.
Note the general nature of the principle in the correct answer. Although
animals are addressed, it is in the broadest fashion possible (“any
creature”). This generality is typical of Strengthen-PR and Justify-PR
answer choices.
Some students are concerned that the answer choice does not mention
mammals. By mentioning “any creature” (which of course includes all
mammals), the answer subsumes the group of mammals and therefore
the principle is still usable. For example, suppose you try to draw a
conclusion that no person should hurt a black cat. A principle stating
that “no cats should be hurt” would apply since “cats” naturally includes
“black cats.” The same type of reasoning is involved in this problem.
When you encounter a Principle designator in the question stem, prepare to
apply the principle to a situation that falls under the purview of the principle but
is not necessarily directly addressed by the principle. This process of abstraction
consumes more time that the average question and contributes to lengthening
the problem completion time. Regardless, if you use the skills you developed
while examining other question types (such as Must Be True and Strengthen),
you can successfully navigate Principle questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment