Q13 - Suffering from a kidney failure

[zainrizvi]

While I understand the general gist of the answer, I'm a bit confused as to why the stimulus mentions the father's belief were mistaken. I thought it might have played a role in the principle, but the principle doesn't really talk about how you should follow someones beliefs, despite their accuracy. Is this something I should be wary of in principle questions - unnecessary details?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Typically no. But sometimes, they'll use those "unnecessary details" in the tempting but wrong answer choices. A question that asks you to justify the reasoning with a principle typically will link all of the pertinent evidence to the conclusion. I too would have been looking for the issue of a "mistaken belief" in the correct answer.

But the most important task to be accomplished is to justify the reasoning. So even an answer that leaves some issue unaddressed, if it bridges the evidence cited for the conclusion will be correct. One thing to notice is that "even though" typically means a counter point. Counter points are not typically cited as justification, and since we're trying to link the evidence to the conclusion, counter points could theoretically just be ignored.

The conclusion reached here is the daughter's decision not to consent to the surgery. The cited justification is her father's personally opposition to such transplants. Answer choice (E) would justify the daughter's decision by holding her to her father's wishes.

Incorrect Answers

(A) would not force the daughter to act in any particular manner. Sure the father had not prohibited the daughter from consenting the surgery, but that would would only allow the daughter to not consent, but would not force her to.
(B) would justify the opposite choice than that made by the daughter.
(C) does not apply since the surgery would likely prolong the life of the patient.
(D) does not apply since securing the treatment would not be dangerous to the kidney donor.

[aznriceboi17]

Is it just me, or is the advice in (B) not consistent?

It starts off by saying that the interests of that person are paramount -- which to me seems to be saying that it must have the most importance of all factors. But then it goes on to say that the person should decide according to what would most help promote that person's health -- the language suggests that this 'help promote health' criteria is the deciding factor, which doesn't seem compatible with the other person's interests being paramount.

[ohthatpatrick]

I think you're interpreting "the interests of that person" in (B) as a paraphrase for "the father's objection to live donors"?

If so, I see what you mean about (B) giving contradictory advice:
"The most important thing to do is honor his wishes and deny the kidney transplant, and you should also decide what would help his health most, which is to grant the kidney transplant." Huh?

If the rule were contradictory, we certainly couldn't pick it as our answer. But I don't think we can narrowly read "the interests of that person" as a paraphrase for "the objection to live organ donors".

Even though we might say that the father DID have an interest in not having a live organ donor, he might also have had an interest in living as long as possible. "The interests" of that person would have to encompass all the various things that person believes/values, and this rule wouldn't give us a way of elevating one of those beliefs/values above all the others.

I think the intended reading of "the interests of that person" is more like "in that person's best interest", which sounds more like the latter half of (B), more like accepting the kidney transplant.

Good question, though.

[aznriceboi17]

Ah ok. "In that person's best interests" definitely seems like a more plausible reading. You were right -- I had the father's objection to live donors in mind when I first read it.

Thank you!

[chal45oye]

If it bridges the evidence cited for the conclusion will be correct. One thing to notice is that "even though" typically means a counter point. Counter points are not typically cited as justification, and since we're trying to link the evidence to the conclusion, counter points could theoretically just be ignored.

The conclusion reached here is the daughter's decision not to consent to the surgery. The cited justification is her father's personally opposition to such transplants. Answer choice (E) would justify the daughter's decision by holding her to her father's wishes.