Q21 - Ethicist: As a function

[yusangmin]

So why exactly is D bad?

is it because the psychiatrist also has a duty to keep confidentitality?
or is it because the nightmares dont really constitute "duty"?

this freaking question bugged the heck outta me!

[bbirdwell]

Your task here is to match a specific example to the principle cited in the argument. So first you need to know the logical structure of that principle.

1. ppl have various duties
2. There are times when acting in accord with one of these duties has disastrous consequences
3. b/c of 2., duties are not absolute
4. If no overwhelming evidence of disastrous consequences --> fulfill the duty

Note the conditional statement at the end. The correct answer will definitely have to align with it.

(D) essentially says this:
Patient tells psychiatrist about nightmares.
Psychiatrist should fulfill her duty to alert authorities rather than her duty to maintain confidentiality.

This is not a match to the original principle because the original principle does not discuss what to do when two duties conflict.

(A) is the correct answer because it aligns perfectly with the conditional statement. The teacher does not have overwhelming evidence that there will be disastrous consequences (student MIGHT not get internship) --> teacher should fulfill duty.

[mrudula_2005]

Also, even if D did not have the clause "...even though the psychiatrist also has a duty of confidentiality to her patients...", it misses the boat because it states "the patient may have broken the law" which indicates a lack of "overwhelming evidence that fulfilling such a duty will have disastrous consequences" plus, who is to know what the consequences of the patient having broken the law would be...they may not even be "disastrous" (or am I wrong in the latter statement, since it states that the nightmares were regarding a "terrible crime" and can we safely then infer that having broken the law and reporting it would result in disastrous consequences?)

is this reasoning fine?

thanks

[bbirdwell]

Sounds good to me.

[mrudula_2005]

Also, even if D did not have the clause "...even though the psychiatrist also has a duty of confidentiality to her patients...", it misses the boat because it states "the patient may have broken the law" which indicates a lack of "overwhelming evidence that fulfilling such a duty will have disastrous consequences" plus, who is to know what the consequences of the patient having broken the law would be...they may not even be "disastrous" (or am I wrong in the latter statement, since it states that the nightmares were regarding a "terrible crime" and can we safely then infer that having broken the law and reporting it would result in disastrous consequences?)

is this reasoning fine?

thanks

I just re-read what I wrote but what I'm saying is actually support for the fact that without that extra clause in D about coveting confidentialities, D would conform to the principle of morality, right? Sorry to extend this conversations here...but without that extra clause D seems to fit the principle because there is a lack of overwhelming evidence that fulfilling the duty will have disastrous consequences, right?

thanks again i really appreciate it!

[tzyc]

So "even though" is a sufficient condition trigger?
I think "even thought" is equal to "even if" so we can think "even if" as sufficient condition trigger too right?
Does that mean we can always ignor the word "even" (such as even when) and consider the sentence as conditional statement?

Thanks.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Let's adjust the thought process here a little.

Typically "even if" can be seen as lets ignore this information.

A, if B = B --> A
A only if B = A --> B
A even if B = A (is simply true, regardless of B or not)

Do not translate "even if" or "even though" into sufficient condition triggers. More likely they function as "and." Here are some other language cues that function like "and."

Yet
While
Although
Even though
But

So in answer choice (D), "even though" functions like "and."

[tzyc]

Hi mattsherman, thank you for your reply.
I'm actually a little confused because,
bbirdwell says above that "(A) is the correct answer because it aligns perfectly with the conditional statement. The teacher does not have overwhelming evidence that there will be disastrous consequences (student MIGHT not get internship) --> teacher should fulfill duty."
I think he mentions his forth part "4. If no overwhelming evidence of disastrous consequences --> fulfill the duty
" and I do see the conditional statement. But when I look at answer (A), I actually did not see the same conditional statement but I guess he is talking about the part starting "The teacher should fulfill...even though the lower grade might harm..."
So I thought maybe even though=even if=if?
I understand what you say and even if=and, but then I do not understand how bbirdwell gets to the conditional statement...
Could you please explain the answer in a different way maybe?
By the way, I chose (B) originally, thinking it may be a contrapositive of the conditional statement in the stimulus...

[shirando21]

why can't B be correct?

[ban2110]

So why exactly is D bad?

is it because the psychiatrist also has a duty to keep confidentitality?
or is it because the nightmares dont really constitute "duty"?

this freaking question bugged the heck outta me!

Is it because in (B) the person has overwhelming evidence? The person knows that lying will make his friend happier. I interpreted the "will" as being definite/absolute (and therefore overwhelming) as opposed to answer choice (A) which uses "might" which suggests there might not be overwhelming evidence.

The conditional statement in the stimulus is: ~OE --> FD
The statement in choice (B) (to me) read as: OE --> FD.
(OE = overwhelming evidence; FD = fulfill duty)

Is this the proper way to think of choice (B)? I apologize if I confused anyone. This question was insanely tricky.

[shirando21]

So why exactly is D bad?

is it because the psychiatrist also has a duty to keep confidentitality?
or is it because the nightmares dont really constitute "duty"?

this freaking question bugged the heck outta me!

Is it because in (B) the person has overwhelming evidence? The person knows that lying will make his friend happier. I interpreted the "will" as being definite/absolute (and therefore overwhelming) as opposed to answer choice (A) which uses "might" which suggests there might not be overwhelming evidence.

The conditional statement in the stimulus is: ~OE --> FD
The statement in choice (B) (to me) read as: OE --> FD.
(OE = overwhelming evidence; FD = fulfill duty)

Is this the proper way to think of choice (B)? I apologize if I confused anyone. This question was insanely tricky.

I read B as:
OE-->-FD

I think it is reversed.
Thanks for the discussion though.

[dean.won]

Could you check if my reasoning is correct?

Principle : if NO hard evidence that fulfilling duty will have disastrous consequences --> should fulfill

A) will there be disastrous consequences if teacher raises grade?
NO therefore should fulfill

D) will there be disastrous consequences if psych does NOT reports?
MAYBE therefore dont know if she should fulfill

I chose A b/c it had the clearer NO answer

B C E were incorrect b/c it confuses suf/nec condition
(ie. we need an answer that says SHOULD fulfill OR have hard evidence for disastrous consequences)

Both even though statements were unnecessary

[raziel]

For (D), notice that there is not overwhelming evidence to support the fact that doing either duty will have disastrous consequences. There is no evidence that not reporting will have disastrous consequences (all we have is a dream), and there is no evidence that keeping patient confidentiality in this case will have disastrous consequences. Therefore, we have two duties but the passage doesn't tell us about competing duties. So we can't make any claims about what duty she should carry in this case.

[Misti Duvall]

Question Type:
Principle Example

Stimulus Breakdown:
If no overwhelming evidence that fulfilling a job/societal duty will have disastrous consequences, then one should fulfill it.

Answer Anticipation:
With Principle Example questions, it can help to first diagram the principle in the stimulus. Then look for a situation that matches the principle in the answers.

Correct answer:
(A)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) This matches. Harming one's chances of obtaining an intership is not overwhelming evidence of disastrous consequences. So the teacher should fulfill her duty.

(B) Making someone happier is not overwhelming evidence of distastrous consequences, so the friend SHOULD fulfill his duty. This doesn't match.

(C) There's nothing in the stimulus about fulfilling a duty or not based on whether someone stops doing what they're doing. Eliminate.

(D) There's nothing in the stimulus about conflicting job/societal duties. And there's no consideration in the answer choice about the consequences. Eliminate.

(E) It's fair to question whether a slight chance is the same as overwhelming evidence. And there's nothing in the stimulus about waiting to fulfill a duty.

Takeaway/Pattern:
First diagram the principle in the stimulus, then match it to the situations in the answer choices. If any part of the answer choice doesn't match, eliminate.

#officialexplanation

[JonghyukJ247]

Can we ignore answer choices that one "should not" fulfill one's duty??

because it's a sufficient condition of the contrapositive of the principle

i.e) Should not fulfill -> Overwhelming evidence

and overwhelming evidence, which is a condition necessary, doesn't GUARANTEE that a duty should not be performed(Sufficient).

Based on this reasoning, I eliminated B,C and E.

Was I right in doing so?