LSAT Explanation PT 19, S2, Q12: Carl: Researchers who perform operations on

LSAT Question Stem

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument made by Debbie in response to Carl's argument? 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Weaken question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is D. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

First, let's analyze the argument in the passage. Carl states that researchers performing operations on animals are required to complete pain protocols, while these protocols are not required for humans. He concludes that if lawmakers were as concerned about humans as they are about animals, there would be pain protocols for humans too. This is the conclusion of the argument. Debbie responds by arguing that pain protocols are unnecessary for humans because they can be told about the pain to expect and decide whether to undergo the operation or not. This is Debbie's conclusion.

The question type is a Weaken question, which asks us to find the answer choice that most seriously weakens Debbie's argument.

Now, let's go through the answer choices:

a) Not all operations that are performed on human beings are painful.

- This statement does not weaken Debbie's argument, as it doesn't address the necessity of pain protocols for those operations that are painful.

b) Some experimentation that is now done on animals need not be done at all.

- This statement is irrelevant to Debbie's argument about pain protocols for humans.

c) Preparing pain protocols is not a time-consuming or costly procedure.

- This statement does not weaken Debbie's argument, as it doesn't address the necessity of pain protocols for humans.

d) Some surgical operations performed on infants are painful.

- This is the correct answer. It weakens Debbie's argument because it highlights a situation where pain protocols might be necessary for humans. Infants cannot understand or make decisions about the pain they can expect, unlike the adults Debbie is referring to. This exposes a gap in Debbie's argument and weakens it.

e) Unalleviated pain after an operation tends to delay the healing process.

- This statement does not necessarily weaken Debbie's argument, as it doesn't show why pain protocols would be needed. Debbie's argument is that people can be told about the pain they can expect, so this statement doesn't address the necessity of pain protocols for humans.

An "Evaluate" question for this argument could be: "Are there any situations where humans cannot understand the risks and steps related to pain during an operation?"

In conclusion, answer choice D most seriously weakens Debbie's argument by exposing a gap in her reasoning and highlighting a situation where pain protocols might be necessary for humans.