Q18 - A physician has a duty

[noah]

18. (D)
Question type: Assumption
We must honor a patient’s right to information even if it interferes with a doctor’s duty to see to her health and best medical interest"”this argument suggests"”because the right to information is a basic right. This makes sense if we assume that we should never violate a basic right, as (D) suggests. If we did not assume that, and a basic right was not inviolate, then why would we protect that right over a doctor’s duty?

(A) is out of scope.
(B) is somewhat tempting in that it seems to defend a doctor’s hypothetical decision to inform a patient regardless of how that affects the patient. However, the argument is not concerned with whether an argument is "right", just whether it should prevail.
(C) is out of scope. It’s not important why only persons have rights and objects do not. The argument is about why a right should prevail over a duty.
(E) is very attractive since it discusses a reason that one right should prevail over others, however, the argument is about why a certain right should prevail over a duty, not another right.

[coco.wu1993]

I chose C for this one because I thought the conclusion is "Anything else carries the risk of treating the patient as a mere object, not as a person." Could anyone else help me clear this up? Thanks!

[noah]

I chose C for this one because I thought the conclusion is "Anything else carries the risk of treating the patient as a mere object, not as a person." Could anyone else help me clear this up? Thanks!

I see what you mean.

However, if we assume (C), can we now get to the conclusion that the right to information should prevail? No. We still can't jump from the right to information being a basic right to that right prevailing. All we can say, with (C) in place, is that this whole issue won't apply to objects.

I think you're overlooking that the answers's "job" is to get you all the way from the premise to the conclusion.

That clear it up?

[asafezrati]

I wonder how does the last sentence in the stimulus functions in the argument.

I don't think its a filler, but a premise.

Is it a support for the assumption in answer choice D, by saying that if the basic rights are violated there are negative consequences (and for this reason they "should never be violated")?

If the stimulus was complete, and the assumption explicitly stated, would it be a sub conclusion?

Thanks

[olaizola.mariana]

Why should we assume that, just because the doctor's duty doesn't trump the basic right in this case, the right is inviolable? It seems entirely possible to me that this basic right could be trumped by another basic right -- if the two happen to conflict, for example.

[maryadkins]

This is a sufficient assumption question, so the answer doesn't have to be necessary. We just want the conclusion to be true. (D) makes the conclusion true.

If this is confusing, brush up on the difference between necessary and sufficient assumptions in the LR Strategy Guide!

[olaizola.mariana]

So, to clarify, "follows logically" means "look for a sufficient [not necessary] assumption?"

[tommywallach]

Nope. That language can refer to many question types. In fact, that language alone usually implies inference ("Which of the following follows most logically from the above"). It depends on context around that phrase. This question uses the word ASSUME, so you know it's assumption.

-t

[AaronR315]

This is one of those questions where I am always confused of how far I am allowed to go with the assumption or in this case you could say the principle. Because am I correct in stating that that would be another way of stating the question with the right answer: Which one of the following principles most helps to justify the reasoning above? Even if I cannot completely reword the question as such to get the answer that is given, the answer is principle type in its form correct? So when I look at this question as a whole and see that the stimulus is only talking in terms of the patient/physician relationship and nothing else, well then I throw answer D out almost instantly. It is saying that the person's basic rights should not be violated in any case whether it be a natural crisis, a problem at school or job, government intrusion, anything really that could encroach on the basic rights of the person. I understand answer A, that I guessed, has maybe too restrictive in its parameters parellelling the stimulus parameters mentioned, but other than that I see no real problem with that answer. Unless just saying right, as the answer does, instead of also adding "basic" makes all the difference in the world. But I look past that minute error, if it is an error, because the right answer again encapsulates all scenarios outside the patient/physician relationship. So I get confounded at this kind of question/answer type due to this. When would I know the answer D hits it right on the money as correct and when I would be right in saying that answer is to broad?