RC Question 20 Explanation, by LSATHacks
DISCUSSION: The right answer is directly supported by the passage. This is almost always the case on reading comprehension “must be true” questions. You can save time by finding a line reference rather than getting stuck between answers.
___________
- We’re never told about any actual clinical trials and whether they meet any standards.
- This is tempting, but it isn’t necessarily true. Lines 29-32 say that if theoretical equipoise is adhered to, few trials would start. So there are two possibilities:
1. Few trials start.
2. Many trials start, but they violate theoretical equipoise.This answer only works if we can rule out the second possibility. And we can’t do that.
- CORRECT. Lines 29-32 suggest this. They say very few clinical trials could achieve theoretical equipoise. So that technically means the standard is rarely met.
- Careful. Lines 8-14 do say that most clinicians and ethicists think we should use theoretical equipoise. But this answer talks about ethical standards in general. We have no idea if clinicians and ethicists think all current ethical standards are good.
- Tempting. Lines 38-42 say that resolving conflicts of opinion are one reason researchers do trials. But this answer says most trials are done for that reason, and that’s not supported.
Hi, I'm Graeme Blake
Founder of LSAThacks; I scored a 177 on the LSAT.
I created the LSAT Mastery Seminars, which are part of the Ultimate LSAT Prep Bundle
If you like the explanations you're reading I'm 100% confident you'll enjoy the courses. Satisfaction guaranteed.
---------
Updates:
For updates, sign up for my email list. I update whenever I have new posts.
On line 15 it says “Unfortunately, the conception of equipoise that is typically employed- which I will term ‘theoretical equipoise’- may be too strict.”
So, we know theoretical equipoise is most of the time employed.
Line 29 says if theoretical equipoise is adhered to, few comparative clinical trials could commence and even fewer could proceed to completion.
This is in direct contradiction to C- it’s not true that that theoretical equipoise is rarely met- it is typically (most of the time) met. This also provides strong support for B.
In addition, The author uses the conditional on line 29 and the argument that theoretical is too strict to support his claim in the next paragraph that a less restrictive equipoise, clinical equipoise, should be adopted. If clinical trials rarely meet the standards set in theoretical equipoise anyway, and thus there is no real downside to theoretical such as it blocking clinical trials from commencing, why should we consider adopting the author’s “less restrictive” form of clinical equipoise. If it’s not really restricting clinical trials, then why should we adopt a less restrictive form??
I cannot justify answer C and this question is driving me crazy. Is there something I am missing?
The 2nd paragraph is almost exclusively hypothetical, it uses terms like “would”. The only time they speak factually is in the line you cite: the **conception** of equipose that is employed. This doesn’t mean it is employed in governing studies. But rather that it is the theoretical ethical framework adopted.
We don’t always live by our principles. You could self define as an active person and live as a couch potato. The passage does not tell us that we actually DO halt trials due to equipoise. Only that we **would** have to do so **if** we actually followed strict theoretical equipoise.
The implication is that we quite plausibly don’t follow strict equipoise in practice even if it is the theoretical framework we employ. I’m not saying this is definitively the truth, but the author heavily suggests it by speaking so hypothetically.
You have to notice these very subtle shifts on the LSAT. The passage doesn’t provide any justification for showing we actually do use theoretical equipoise to make a difference in the world. It rather is the version of equipoise we use when devising our ethical theories.
As for C, the justification is simple: the final lines of paragraph 2 suggest real world clinical trials rarely meet the harsh standard of theoretical equipoise. Few could start and even fewer could finish. If we actually did use clinical equipoise to govern trials, then they wouldn’t start if we didn’t meet the standard for theoretical equipoise.
Note: This is an old comment but I wanted to clarify the point.
Lines 38-41 say exactly what is in answer choice E. What am I missing? I originally picked choice C, but changed it to E because it was stated exactly in the passage.
Because the answer says “most”, but those lines just say “one reason”, so that doesn’t necessarily mean most trials are for that reason.
Hi Graeme,
Thank you for all of your helpful resources.
I am wondering about answer E. Lines 38-42 state that one of the reasons for conducting comparative clinical trials is to resolve current or imminent conflict over which treatment should be given. It seems that is what answer E says.
Lines 38-42 say “one reason” and E says “most trials”. Not the same thing.
However my own explanation wasn’t good, so I updated this. Thanks for pointing that out.
B does rely on lines 29-32 that say “IF theoretical equipose is adhered to”, but lines 15-16 say that theoretical equipose are “typically employed”, meaning they ARE put into practice right? Wouldn’t that make B correct as well?
You have to read lines 15-16 in context with 29-32. IF equipoise were adhered to, we wouldn’t have trials. Since we do have trials, clearly we don’t strictly adhere to theoretical equipoise.
Also, equipoise might not be the only factor in trial frequency, so it’s possible we’d have no more trials even with a laxer standard.