Summarize Argument
The ethicist believes that, in the choice between two medicines, there are more considerations at play than just the cost vs. the effectiveness of each medicine. In support, we are told that letting a patient die just because the less expensive medicine was used would cause more grief to that patient’s family members. This is one example of the additional considerations that, according to the ethicist, should inform the choice of medicine.
Identify Conclusion
The ethicist’s conclusion is that the decision of which medicine to use is not simply about cost vs. lives saved; it “must also be weighed against such considerations” as the grief experienced by patients’ families.
A
ASA should never be given to postoperative cardiac patients in place of TPA.
This is not stated in the argument. The ethicist never makes an absolute claim about which medicine should be used over the other, the argument is just about what factors warrant consideration.
B
TPA is a slightly more effective clot-dissolving agent than ASA.
Like (D), this can be inferred from the facts stated, but it’s context for the argument rather than being part of the argument itself. The ethicist’s focus is on including considerations beyond cost vs. effectiveness, and this claim isn’t part of that.
C
The extra expense of TPA cannot be weighed simply against the few additional lives saved.
This accurately captures the main conclusion. The ethicist says we need to weigh the cost of this type of medicine against more factors than just effectiveness, and the example of grief is used to support that.
D
ASA is a less expensive clot-dissolving agent than TPA.
Like (B), this is part of the argument’s context, not part of the argument. The argument is about considering more factors than just cost vs. effectiveness, the discussion of cost just sets the stage for that conversation.
E
Relatives of a patient who has died grieve more if the patient received ASA rather than TPA.
This statement in the argument isn’t offered any support, it’s just stated as a fact. Furthermore, it’s used as an example to support the conclusion about taking more factors into consideration when deciding on a medicine. That makes this a premise, not the conclusion.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that most people would want to be informed if they had any serious medical condition. As support, the author says that in each of several recent studies, over 80% of those surveyed said that they would want to be informed if they had a serious medical condition.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that these studies surveyed a group that was representative enough to make broad, generalized conclusions that apply to “most people.” The author also assumes that the sample sizes for these surveys was high enough to make conclusions that apply to “most people.” Additionally, the author assumes that the survey design was high quality for each survey, and that the questions were not phrased in a way that could bias the results.
A
In another recent study, most of the people surveyed indicated that they would not want to be told if they had a serious medical condition.
(A) weakens the argument because it introduces survey data that contradicts our author’s conclusion. We have no information about how any of these surveys were conducted, or how many studies support our argument, so a survey with contradictory information weakens the argument.
B
People often do not indicate their true feelings when responding to surveys.
(B) weakens the argument because it provides a reason to doubt survey data as legitimate evidence to make the kind of claim that the author is making.
C
Some of the researchers conducting the studies had no background in medicine.
If someone has no background in medicine, it does not mean that they would be unable to conduct a quality survey. Also, we only know that “some” of the researchers had no background in medicine, which only tells us that this applies to at least one researcher.
D
Some questions asked in the studies suggested that reasonable people would want to be told if they had a serious medical condition.
This weakens the argument because it says that at least some of the survey questions were phrased in a way that would bias the results, which gives reason to doubt the validity of these surveys.
E
The people surveyed in the studies were all young students in introductory psychology courses.
(E) tells us that the surveys were not conducted on a representative sample. This weakens the argument because it makes it far less likely that the results of the survey can be generalized to make a conclusion about “most people.”
Summary
Wasting natural resources is wrong.
Burning huge amounts of trash in incinerators is a waste of natural resources.
Recycling trash wastes fewer resources than burning it in incinerators.
If an incinerator is built, less trash will be recycled.
The city shouldn’t build an incinerator.
Burning huge amounts of trash in incinerators is a waste of natural resources.
Recycling trash wastes fewer resources than burning it in incinerators.
If an incinerator is built, less trash will be recycled.
The city shouldn’t build an incinerator.
Very Strongly Supported Conclusions
The city should not take an action that is wrong.
The city should not take an action that will inhibit a reduction in resource waste.
If the city is burning huge amounts of trash in an incinerator, the city is wasting resources.
The city should not take an action that will inhibit a reduction in resource waste.
If the city is burning huge amounts of trash in an incinerator, the city is wasting resources.
A
All of the city’s trash that is not recycled goes into incinerators.
Unsupported. The stimulus doesn’t suggest that the only disposal options are recycling and incineration. It’s true that building an incinerator leads to less recycling, but there might also be more methods! Maybe some trash goes landfills and the rest is either burnt or recycled.
B
By recycling more trash, the city can stop wasting resources entirely.
Unsupported. “Recycling more trash” doesn’t necessarily mean recycling all trash—huge amounts could still be burnt! Also, recycling might still waste resources, albeit fewer. Finally, the city might be wasting resources in other ways, too, and recycling trash wouldn’t stop that.
C
The most effective way to conserve resources is to recycle trash.
Unsupported. We know that recycling trash helps conserve resources, but we don’t know that this is the most effective way to do so.
D
If the city is to avoid wasting resources, huge amounts of trash cannot be burned in any city incinerator.
Very strongly supported. Burning huge amounts of trash in incinerators wastes resources, so as long as the city is doing that, it is wasting resources. If the city were to avoid wasting resources, it would need to stop burning huge amounts of trash in incinerators!
E
If the city does not burn trash, it will not waste resources.
Unsupported. The city might be wasting resources in other ways! Maybe the city has a policy of leaving lights on in government buildings, or uses wasteful water distribution plans, or engages in any number of other wasteful practices!