RC Question 21 Explanation
DISCUSSION: The argument in the third and fourth paragraphs is that we can and should use an alternate ethical standard: clinical equipoise.
___________
- CORRECT. Read lines 48-50. Clinical equipoise depends on disagreement within the expert community. For clinical equipoise to work, at least some people must think the alternative treatment is best.
If there is a consensus that one treatment is better, then it would be unethical to conduct a trial to confirm that fact, even if clinical equipoise was the standard. That’s because it’s unethical to prescribe a treatment you believe to be worse (lines 1-2), so it would be unethical for researchers to prescribe the treatment that a consensus of experts believed was worse. - This supports the idea of equipoise. If few researchers feel conflicted, then equipoise is easier. (Clinical equipoise offers a way to run trial without neutrality, but neutrality is even better if possible.)
- This doesn’t really weaken the argument in paragraphs 3 and 4. It just indicates a problem with medical trials generally.
This is like saying a proposal to reform the police department is wrong because crime is rising. Rising crime is a problem, certainly, but the reorganization might still be good idea. Likewise, adopting clinical equipoise might be a good idea even if there are other problems with medical trials. - Who cares what ethicists think? They might be wrong! On the LSAT, we’re concerned with what is true, not with what people think is true. Normally, you should give some deference to experts, but this passage provides much evidence that ethicists have used standards that aren’t helpful.
- This doesn’t really matter. Developing a bias during a trial is only one way to violate theoretical equipoise. Researchers can also have a bias at the start of a trial: the third and fourth paragraph describe this possibility. Having a bias at the start of a trial is the main reason for clinical equipoise, and this answer doesn’t weaken that reason.
I’m struggling a bit with (C),
I thought “let the readers see the injustice of the events” in the stimulus was very close to the idea of “engaging the readers’ moral sensibilities”.
I also thought “allowing readers to experience the world from the moral perspective of the novel’s character” was related to “engaging the readers’ moral sensibilities” (a bit more skeptical about this, but still unsure).
Hi, I believe you might have commented this on the wrong page? This question is about medical practitioners and clinical equipose. If you let me know the correct Q # or comment on the correct page, I can answer your question!