Q3 - Philosopher: Effective tests have

[didi0504]

I am not really sure what type of question this belongs to, and I don't really know what I should be looking for specifically.

Thanks in advance!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Treat this as a principle question. You're looking for an answer choice that represents a principle that conforms to the state of affairs described by the philosopher. So think of the big picture idea that is being related in the stimulus and then find an answer choice that best represents that big picture.

Another way to look at this one is to think of it as an inference question and that you're looking for the answer choice that is most strongly supported by the statements made by the philosopher. This could lead to too narrow of a reading though, and so I would advise to try and stay big picture.

See if that helps, and if you still have questions on this one, let me know!

[interestedintacos]

This is very good advice. I thought of it as an inference and was surprisingly confused. I think you're right on. This is similar to other questions I've seen--fact set principle questions. We get a set of facts in the stimulus, and we are tasked with choosing a principle in the answer choices which could use the stimulus as an example/evidence.

[celene0007]

I am confuse why B is correct and D is not. This should have been an easy question seen as it is number two and a principle question. I dismissed B because it contain the ethical dilemma part.

Could someone point me in the right direction with this question? Thank you in advance.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

The reason why answer choice (D) is incorrect is that it goes beyond the scope of the information. In an earlier post I suggested to stay "big picture" but I did not mean to extrapolate the information to something not implied. If you approach this question with the same parameters as an inference question, and expect the same from the answer choices, you'll be in a good position for this type of question.

We know that medical testing has been advanced but without a way to prevent conditions that could be detected. This raises the question of whether the medical tests should be offered. Collectively, this information supports the principle outlined in answer choice (B).

Answer choice (D), however, presents a relationship that is not implied nor is illustrated in the stimulus. it's not that we "come to realize how little we know," but rather that we are confronted with challenging situations now that we know more. Another issue with answer choice (D) is that it's very sweeping, and not constrained at all. Answer choice (B) is much weaker, in that it says ethical dilemmas "can" arise, not that they "will" arise.

Hope that helps and let me know if you have further questions on this one!

[bethany.pickett]

..

[sumukh09]

A) doesn't really get at the heart of the issue put forward by the philosopher. He's concerned with the impact that the advance in medicine has on people with respect to an ethical consideration about informing people that they have a fatal disease. A) doesn't really touch on this and only says that the advance of medicine can't be the solution to everything -- of course it can't, but this is not what the stimulus is trying to get at. Further, B) is a better summary of the state of affairs described by the philosopher.

As far as the equivocation, I don't think there is one since the stim says effective treatments have been "developed" which is the same thing as saying medicine has been advanced.

[gabcap1]

I'm going to chime in on D, which I find oh-so-tempting, and add that "the more we realize how little we know" isn't really happening here. The fact that we can't prevent or cure the conditions being predicted is not new information. We're not realizing how little we know -- we always knew we couldn't cure them.

Put another way... comparing D to the stimulus:

AC: "The more we come to learn..."
//
Stimulus: "for the first time, a person can be warned well in advance of the possibility of life-threatening conditions"
Awesome. We learned something!

AC: "the more we realize how little we know"
//
Stimulus: ?
We didn't need to figure out how to prevent them to realize that we don't know how to cure them. The discovery does not enable us to realize something new.

It does, however, raise a new question. A more apt phrasing of D would be: "The more we come to learn..." the more we QUESTION whether we should even use what we learn. And in comes B.

[450572899]

A little question about answer B.I’m okey with "creates new contexts in which ethical dilemmas can rise"but I think there is something wrong with "the advance of medicine".I just can't figure out "effective tests"is the same with"medicine tests".Some help please

[rhkwk1441]

A little question about answer B.I’m okey with "creates new contexts in which ethical dilemmas can rise"but I think there is something wrong with "the advance of medicine".I just can't figure out "effective tests"is the same with"medicine tests".Some help please

I feel the same way.

What "have recently been developed" are effective tests that can predict fatal diseases.

However the medicine is not capable of treating most such conditions.

(B) states "the advance of medicine" creates ethical dilemma. But we don't know anything about the advance of medicine.
That's why I ruled out (B) and went with (A).

It seems like we are equating medicine with the newly developed effective tests but I don't see how this could be the case.

Any help is much appreciated

[ohthatpatrick]

Let me address two things you said:
(B) states "the advance of medicine" creates ethical dilemma. But we don't know anything about the advance of medicine.
That's why I ruled out (B) and went with (A).

I don't understand why (A) becomes a better choice, given your complaint. Your problem with (B) was "advance of medicine", so you picked a DIFFERENT answer that talks about "advance of medicine"?

If you're choosing between (A) and (B), you have to focus on the DIFFERENCE between them, not the sameness.

You would be asking yourself, "Was this paragraph more about failing to solve every problem or about creating a new ethical dilemma?"

"This [the implications of our new early warning tests] raises the question ... " seems to match better with (B).

You also said:
It seems like we are equating medicine with the newly developed effective tests but I don't see how this could be the case.

The term 'medicine' to be refers to many different things under the umbrella of anatomy, biology, pharmacology, pathology, etc.

Doctors must diagnose as well as treat, so getting better at either is getting better at 'medicine'.

If you're wondering how we justify that medicine has "advanced", the 1st sentence says "these diagnostic tests have recently been developed" and the 2nd sentence says "Now, for the first time, we can diagnose these diseases in advance."

If you accept that diagnosing illnesses falls under the purview of 'medicine' and that being able to diagnose an illness sooner constitutes an 'advance', then we should be able to accept the language of 'advance of medicine'.

Maybe you were thinking of 'medicine' literally as 'the stuff you put into your body to get better'. They're using it as "the field of medicine / medical school / medical knowledge".

Hope this helps.

[IsaacS381]

I chose the right answer, but debated between B and E. Why is E wrong? The passage doesn't say anything explicitly about "ethical dilemmas," that was an inference I had to make based on the last two sentences.

But I feel like the last two sentences also support the idea that the author is questioning the value of technological advances. Sure, they seem good ("effective tests," "for the first time…life-threatening conditions") but "simply being informed…can itself be quite harmful" and "this raises the question whether…" These statements all seem to point toward the questionable value of technology.

Why B over E?

[LolaC289]

I struggle with this question very much as well. Painfully chose (B) but holding grudge to this choice as well.

But as far as principle(best illustrated) questions go, we should be aware that the correct answer should be able to lead us to the same conclusion as the argument presented. This does not only concerns the content, but also the superficial form of the principle.

For example, if the author gave a conclusion which is confirming a certain action, we should then formulate a principle that confirms actions; if the author gave a conclusion about a certain criteria to judging certain things, we should then formulate a principle that is a criteria. We don't give question as a principle when the conclusion is an answer, we don't give answer as a principle when the conclusion is a question. This actually manifest in basically every principle questions: the test writers always offer wrong answer choices different in form than the author's conclusion.

In this case, the conclusion of the author is the last sentence, which points out something will raise a question. We should therefore find a principle in the same form.

By merely presenting a question, the author didn't gave answers to this question, nor did he express opinion to the solvability of the question. Thus answers of these two kinds should be eliminated immediately, such as (A), concerns the solvability of questions, and (C) & (D), present no questions at all. They are just not concerned with the same thing that our author is concerned with: merely pointing out a question.

Simply by looking at the form of the principle, we are left with (B) and (E). I have to admit, I don't like both of them.

I had two questions with (B): first, what created "new context" should be the test which can predict fatal diseases, instead of medicines; second, I'm not sure if deciding whether or not to tell people that they are genetically predisposed to fatal disease should be referred to as "ethical dilemma".

And for (E), my question is first, though used the language "of questionable value", the statement itself is not actually pointing out a question, but shows clear attitude towards technology. This is the biggest problem to me, because our author did not actually show an disconfirming attitude to technology itself, but point out even developed technology can bring new problems. Second, the use of "technology" is actually very broad in scope. Technologies don't just contain medical technology, there are computer technology, fabric technology, etc and etc. But broader scope will appear in principles because they refer to not just one specific case. So as I said, the biggest problem I have here is still with the form. (E) gave us an clear attitude, while the stimulus points out a question.

(B), however, looks better in this regard. Actually, it looks so much better because it said something creates new contexts in which question can arise, which is basically the same thing our author said. It clads on tightly with the conclusion's form. I can get over the "ethical dilemma" thing because I guess it is a reasonable leap, if we tell the patients, we are risking them to a feeling of hopeless which is not helpful at all; if we don't tell the patients, it seems to contradict the basic moral of telling the truth. So I went with (B) anyway. But I think if they change the "advance of medicine" to "advance of medical technology", I will let go my last bit of grudge. (LSAT writer: but pleaseget over yourself, when do we care about you holding grudge to us or not.)

To consider the form of the argument's conclusion and the principle helped me a lot in principle questions, because it helps me to focus on the conclusion and not to be distracted by other sometimes really attractive answer choices. Looking forward to better explanation on this question, and I hope this helps you too!

[XiangruC274]

I am still a bit confused of why choosing <B> instead of <A>. By reading the question "Which one of the following statements is best illustrated by the state of affairs described by the philosopher?", I thought this was a "must be true" or "inference" question.

I understand that the stem conclusion is "This raises the question of whether such "early warning" tests should be made available at all". And I also notice that the argument is to point out an dilemma.
However, I was not sure if I can infer "ethical dilemmas" from it. Therefore, I choose the choice <A> because I think it "must be true".
(I think I can infer "The advance of medicine fails to provide solutions to every problem." from the stem "medicine is not yet able to prevent most such conditions" )

I thought ethical is a quite restrict term that only apply to specific issues related with morality.
For me this stem feels like "Taking PT in advance of one's real LSAT can warn the student of his/her weakness. However, taking PT may not significantly improve the student's performance. Simply knowing one's weak performance may only frustrate the students. This raises the question of whether PT should be made available at all." I would think such dilemma is only about personal choices.

I wonder if I misunderstood the question type, or if I misunderstood the definition of "ethical dilemma"?

Thanks in advance!