Question- Pt 33, S1, Q 13 (Neccessary Assumption) Forum

[deebanger]

It really came down to option A or option B for me on this one. I clearly understand the argument core, what the premise and the conclusion is.

Option A made a lot of sense for me because if u negate it, it says the a patient's psychological consideration is important, does'nt that kill the ethicist's argument?, as the ethcist is saying in the premise that when the doctor is giving patient satisfaction by administering placebo, it is wrong. so the premise is that it is wrong and why is patient satisfaction important. So, when the negation of option A tells that patient satisfaction is a consideration, doesn't that make it the wright answer?

I would really apreciate any input you guys have on this, specifically why A is wrong, and if possible why B is right. I spent an obscene amount of time on this q, also read manhattan forum's on this q, did not really get it. Also, does any lsat tutor know if this is a difficult q? if it;s an easy one, I feel really bad and stupid, as i spent a lot of time on it

[Christine (MLSAT)]

Hey there, deebanger!

This question is pretty sticky for a lot of people, but I think I know where you're having the issue - you tell me if I'm off base!

It seems to me that you are reading (A) as if it said "A patient's psychological satisfaction is not an ethically valid consideration in administering medical treatment." If we take this version of (A) and negate it, that would absolutely mean that that psychological satisfaction WERE an ethically valid consideration, and that would destroy the argument that the whole shebang was "ethically questionable."

But that's not what (A) says: it only says that the psych-satisfaction is "not a consideration." This actually does not say anything at all about whether such a thing is or is not ethically justified - it is only talking about what does or does not happen. For (A) to be true, the psych-satisfaction would have to "not be considered" by doctors making medical decisions (regardless of whether that's ethical or otherwise).

For example, if I said "book cover art is not a consideration in book selection", that means that when people make the selection of books, they are not considering the cover art - this is a description of what actually occurs. However, if I said "book cover are is not a valid ethical consideration in book selection", that means that people may actually be using cover art in their decisions, but they (ethically speaking) shouldn't be.

So, since (A) is only describing the actual behavior of doctors, negating it changes those doctors behavior, but doesn't touch their ethical validity. "A patient's psychological satisfaction IS a consideration in administering medical treatment" - this would mean that doctors do in fact consider the pysch-satisfaction. But that doesn't tell me that they are ethically justified in doing so!

I think that most of your issue is in this misreading of (A), but to briefly touch on (B):

• PREMISE: Drs might prescribe placebos for the purpose of giving patients psychological satisfaction
  CONCLUSION: Prescribing placebos is ethically questionable

The premise is essentially giving us information about the possible motives of the doctor in prescribing the placebo, then the conclusion leaps to something about ethical justification. We have to be assuming that the general category of "motivation" is relevant to making conclusions about "ethics" in order to tie these two together in even the most basic sense. If motivation were *not* relevant to the question of ethics, then the entire premise would be useless as support (since it's all about motivation), and the argument would fall apart.

Does that help clear things up a bit?


Now, you asked how hard this question is: I've seen a lot of student struggle with this one, for a number of interesting wording issues. But here's the thing: sometimes certain questions are just going to be sticky for you. Sometimes those questions will be objectively "hard", and sometimes they'll be objectively "easy". Sometimes, a very direct, low-level problem will just read like Russian to you. It happens. And sometimes, a problem that everyone else thinks is rough will just CLICK for you.

Don't get caught up in trying to grade yourself on your performance. The important thing is that every question that you struggle with is a learning experience, and that you cannot let those problems go until the penny drops. The absolute best indicator of your potential for success, in my opinion, is not how objectively easy or hard this question is, but rather, that you are being honest about still not understanding it and continuing to strive for that understanding.

What do you think?

[deebanger]

Hey Christine! really sorry for the late reply!, I have been having internet problems, and yeah now I am really clear on why A is wrong. Your point on how A doesnt mention "ethics" at all really made me think about an important point. So, say we have an argument core, this case the conclusion is about how placebos are ethically questionable, should the correct answer choice more likely also be dealing with "ethics". I realise that this may not always be the case, but does it work most of the time?

[Christine (MLSAT)]

Hey Christine! really sorry for the late reply!, I have been having internet problems, and yeah now I am really clear on why A is wrong. Your point on how A doesnt mention "ethics" at all really made me think about an important point. So, say we have an argument core, this case the conclusion is about how placebos are ethically questionable, should the correct answer choice more likely also be dealing with "ethics". I realise that this may not always be the case, but does it work most of the time?

Good question, deebanger!

Your instincts are good here - what you raise IS a common characteristic of correct answers, but it does not have occur.

Classic argument structures often perform a fundamental term shift between the premise and the conclusion. Any argument that can be essentially whittled down to a single-concept premise and a single-concept conclusion absolutely must have an underlying assumption that connects the two.

Now, the reason this does not guarantee that an important concept in the conclusion will always appear in the answer is that some arguments have a number of necessary assumptions that connect the premises to the conclusion. As a result, one necessary assumption may ignore an important idea altogether, as long as it is making some other fundamental connection to the conclusion.

In this situation, the heart of the conclusion is entirely focused on "ethical justification", so we would certainly expect the correct answer to touch on that concept (either directly, or at the very least by touching on some larger category that 'ethical justification' would fall into).

This is one of the many reasons that it is so important to break arguments into premise/conclusion first, so that the disconnects between the two become apparent, and answers that don't actually reach over to the conclusion can be more easily identified.

You're grappling with some really important ideas here, and I'm glad to see that you are actively looking for genuine logical patterns to argument structures. Keep up the excellent work!