Q17 - Medical research on animials

[pretty_shy96]

After reading the stimulus, I was stuck btwn 2 answer choices (A) & (B). The correct answer is (B), but I am not able to tell the difference btwn (A) & (B). Can anyone help me with this question, please?

[tommywallach]

Hey Pretty,

Actually, the correct answer is (A), which makes a lot more sense!

X says that we need to keep doing medical research on animals because it helps people and people are more important.

Y says actually we can get the same stuff done without testing on animals.

(A) says that Y contradicts a premise of X's, which is true. Y contradicts the premise that animal testing is required to avert human suffering.

(B) says that Y disagrees about the weight of human vs. animal suffering, but actually Y doesn't weigh in on that issue at all (instead, Y says that there's no need for animal suffering anyway).

Hope that helps!

-t

[uhdang]

Got this question wrong in timed condition, and another wrong in the first analysis. It made sense when I learned the answer. Here is why I got them wrong TWO times and then made sense.

Core first,

(X) Medical research on animals serve to avert human suffering + trade-off between human and animal welfare is always inevitable but human welfare should be given greater weight ==> Medical research on animals should not be reduced in response to a concern for animals

(Y) Research could be instead done with computer modeling or human subjects without suffering.

@ X assumes that there is always a risk and suffering for medical research either on animals or human subject, and since human welfare is weighed greater, research on animals should’t be discouraged. In response to this, Y is providing that there is an alternative way that could avoid animals’ suffering or human subject's suffering while continuing the research. This is a direct contradiction of what X has said in a premise, “there is a inevitable trade off between human and animal welfare.”

A) Just as we discussed above, Y presents new information that contradicts X’s premise. There IS a way to avoid trade-off.

B) Although sounds like Y's provision of an alternative way expresses disagreement with X, Y doesn’t explicitly express a disagreement. Doesn’t provide any value judgement on suffering on which side is worse nor whether we should reduce medical research on animals.

C) Logical consequence of X’s argument would be X’s conclusion. Y is not providing another conclusion or any argument based on X’s premise.

D) This was my first choice under timed condition. I was too focused on "evidence not mentioned by X" and, since Y doesn't disagree with X, I thought Y was in agreement with X's argument. Should have read it more thoroughly.

If this were true, Y would be providing another evidence that support why we shouldn’t reduce the number of research on animals. But Y’s statement rather provides ways that COULD reduce the number of research on animals. So, it weakens X's argument.

E) My second wrong choice. Until I check the answer, I was focusing on too much on X's conclusion and Y's argument. I did not notice that X claimed for "inevitable welfare trade-off between humans and animals" in his/her premise. If I had noticed this, I could've found out that Y's argument is a direct contradiction to X's premise. Also, I thought that "supplies a premise" meant just providing an additional information. So, without noticing Y's claim in relation to X's premise, I decided that Y's argument is just an additional information X has not stated.

“supplying a premise to X’s argument” indicates that Y is supporting X’s argument and strengthens it by providing additional support. The language of "supply" contains a quality of "agreement." (Which I failed to notice before..) This is NOT what Y is doing. Y is rather heading against X.