LSAT 159 | Section 1 | Logical Reasoning: Q17

LR Question 17 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Essayist: It would be wrong to defend current testing procedures …

QUESTION TYPE: Necessary Assumption

CONCLUSION: It is wrong to defend current testing procedures only because subjects volunteered + were informed/paid.

REASONING: It’s not wrong when people choose to do so, but it is wrong if the choice is made under duress.

ANALYSIS: For the reasoning to work, the essayist must assume that the volunteers’ choices might not be fully free, and could be under duress. Otherwise, the second sentence would be irrelevant.

The correct assumption must connect “volunteering for risky trials” with the possibility that the choice is not actually free.

When choosing an answer, the answer should be specific enough to apply to the situation in the question. Otherwise you can negate the answer without affecting the question. For example, suppose you say “I will enjoy going to law school”. Do you need to assume:

1. Everyone everywhere will always enjoy any professional education, or
2. At least some people can enjoy higher education

The first one can be negated by saying “One person didn’t like business school, everyone else liked their professional education”. That negation doesn’t affect you, and therefore the assumption isn’t necessary for your argument.

This question really tests your understanding of how to narrowly negate. For more on this, you can read this article: https://lsathacks.com/lsat-negations/

___________

1. CORRECT. The argument needs to assume that being informed doesn’t guarantee that someone’s choice is truly free. Otherwise, the defense (“they were apprised of the risks”) would be sufficient.
   Negation: If someone knows the consequences, then their choice is free.
2. Too strong. The essayist isn’t saying voluntariness never justifies anything. This answer is far broader than medication testing.
    
   With any necessary assumption answer if you can negate it by referring only to some other scenario, then it can’t be the right answer. The right answer, when negated, has to relate to what the question is talking about.
   Negation: Some transactions unrelated to medication testing can be justified solely by voluntariness. Medication testing cannot.
3. Like B, this is also far too broad and covers scenarios unrelated to medication testing. The author isn’t talking about all situations.
    
   This answer is also too strong. Nothing suggests that any lack of total freedom counts as duress. Duress has a specific minimum definition:
    
   >Duress: threats, violence, constraints, or other action brought to bear on someone to do something against their will or better judgment
   Negation: In sports, there are some actions which lack complete freedom but which don’t have duress. However, in medication testing, all actions without complete freedom involve duress.
4. Irrelevant. The issue is whether the choice is free, not whether accepting money for risk is inherently morally okay.
   Negation: It can sometimes be wrong to accept money for risky actions.
5. This mischaracterizes the argument. The essayist only distinguishes free choice from coerced choice. There’s no sweeping claim made about all chosen actions or what we should be allowed to do.
   Negation: Some freely chosen actions should not be permitted.