Q 16

[nehme.solena7]

I believe the information in the 2nd paragraph provides enough support for choice (B). Paragraph 2 says theoretical equipoise exists only when the overall evidence for each of the 2 treatments is judged by each researcher to be balanced. It then concludes with: "If the standard of TE is adhered to, FEW comparative clinical trials could commence and EVEN FEWER could proceed to completion." I took this to mean that (B) is correct in saying "Clinical researchers are often forced to suspend trials prematurely because initial data from the trials strongly favors one treatment." If even fewer trials proceed to completion, it makes sense that trials are often suspended prematurely. Can anyone explain why (B) is wrong?

Moreover, the question asks for what is true according to the info in the passage, not what the author would believe to be true. Therefore, I think (C) is incorrect because it is only true under the notion of clinical equipoise. "Clinical equipoise" is merely something the author made up as an alternative ethical standard that he/she believes should be adopted. It is not the current ethical standard. The current ethical standard is "theoretical equipoise" and under TE, answer choice (C) would be incorrect. I think (C) requires the phrase: "Under clinical equipoise" in order to be correct. Please help.

[rinagoldfield]

Thanks for your post nehme.solena7!

You make some compelling points, but as you know, (C) is ultimately the right answer.

The issue with (B) is a tiny yet forceful word… “if.” Line 29 says “IF the standard of TE is adhered to… fewer [trials] could proceed to completion.” We don’t know if this really happens, only that it would happen IF this standard is followed.

(C) discusses the author’s point of view, as you noted. But the passage IS the author’s point of view, so this is true according the author, and thus according to the passage.

[mornincounselor]

I originally choice (a) for this question. Seeing how extensive the requirements were for theoretical equipoise I was unable to envision a way that these standards could be met and yet there still exist an ethical concern. However, the LSAT is no test of creativity--we don't have to identify all possible ethical problems we just have to recognize that just because certain steps prevent a particular ethical problem this is no bar on the possibility of other ethical problems. A is eliminated.

D and E are both inherently wrong.

B: We know theoretical eq. is the type "typically employed" (line 15) and we know it only exists when all practitioners see the medicines as "exactly balanced" (line 20) and we know that if the standard is adhered to "few c.c. trials could commence and even fewer could proceed to completion" (lines 30-32). The problem is just because a practice is typically employed doesn't mean it is done so successfully. In fact, the author hints to us that it cannot be done successfully at all "an ideal hardly attainable in practice" (lines 20-21) So if we deduce that many trials are in fact halted then not only are we assuming that the practice is used successfully but we are also cutting against the author who is telling us that trials cannot be done this way in practice. B is eliminated.

C: This choice would be much easier to select if the question asked us what the author believes to be true. But if I were to say that I believe the sky is truly red and here is my paper explaining my theory on why the sky is truly red then it makes sense that according to my paper the sky is truly red. If the author believes something and the scale is one-sided (i.e. there is no subsequent introduction of others who disagree with the author) then the passage tends to support the same thing the author believes and there is not much difference between "the author believes" and "according to the passage." C is credited.

[phoebster21]

I also choose B on this but realized that in addition to the fact that this answer is only what would happen IF doctors adhered to TE, it also occurred to me that the reason Comparative Clinical Trials end prematurely is NOT because data favors one treatment over another but because the data causes the doctor/researcher to favor one over another.

Let me explain. In lines 45, the author notes how data can essentially be interpreted differently, "with each side recognizing that opposing experts can differ honestly in their interpretation of the evidence." For example, doctor A thinks, "well, medicine X is better than Y, because even though the patient got nauseous, the infection was cleared up," but Doctor B, upon seeing the EXACT same evidence/results, might think, "medicine Y is definitely better because while it hasn't completely eliminated the infection, like medicine X, the patient had NO side effect of nausea"

So back to answer choice B. Even IF the initial data strongly favored one treatment over another, we CAN'T ASSUME that this leads to THE RESEARCHERS having a strong preference of one treatment over another or a belief "as to which treatment is clinically superior" (line 13))

[moshemeer]

I eliminated choice B because it says strongly, the passage in the lines refrenced only says tips the scale to one treatment over another

[andrewgong01]

Thanks for your post nehme.solena7!

You make some compelling points, but as you know, (C) is ultimately the right answer.

The issue with (B) is a tiny yet forceful word… “if.” Line 29 says “IF the standard of TE is adhered to… fewer [trials] could proceed to completion.” We don’t know if this really happens, only that it would happen IF this standard is followed.

(C) discusses the author’s point of view, as you noted. But the passage IS the author’s point of view, so this is true according the author, and thus according to the passage.

I somewhat disagree with the way "B" is justified as wrong because of this. Line 16 says " Theoretical equipoise is typically employed" , which implies at least 50% we appeal to this equipoise and hence the conditional is triggered because 50%+ of the time we appeal to theoretical equipoise method. To me it seems like "B" is wrong only because it says it is often the case that the evidence strongly favors one side over the other where "strongly" is a strong word and the passage says "small accretions" is what is needed to tip the scales to suspend a trial. In other words, the standard of ending a trial is small changes in evidence and we have no support that the changes in evidence are often 'large' (i.e. strongly favors one side over the other)

[ohthatpatrick]

I like your reason, but I think Rina's is valid as well.

In lines 8-16, we're talking about what SHOULD be the case. When we 'typically employ' the concept of equipoise, we're typically saying "you SHOULD have no opinion as to which treatment is superior."

The fact that the author ends up dubbing this THEORETICAL (hypothetical / ideal / abstract) equipoise and later dubs the pragmatic alternative CLINICAL (actual) equipoise underscores the fact that theoretical equipoise may NOT be something we often or ever see in reality.

The line on 29-32 would make no sense if it were describing something that is ACTUALLY occurring often.

We wouldn't use a conditional tense to describe reality.

We typically say theoretical equipoise SHOULD be _____ ,
but if we actually ADHERED to that standard, then we'd almost never to clinical trials (as we currently do).