|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1482
Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Followers: 10
Kudos [?]:
61
[0], given: 13
|
Susan: Those who oppose experimentation on animals do not [#permalink]
 09 Aug 2006, 12:01
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
Susan: Those who oppose experimentation on animals do not properly value the preservation of human life. Although animal suffering is unfortunate, it is justifiable if it can lead to cures for human ailments.
Melvin: But much animal experimentation involves testing of ordinary consumer products such as soaps, dyes, and cosmetics.
Susan: These experiments are justifiable on the same grounds, since cleanliness, convenience, and beauty are worthwhile human values deserving of support.
Which of the following is the best statement of the logical flaw in Susan’s argument?
(A) Her claim that animal experimentation is justifiable if it supports human values contradicts her claim that such experimentation is justifiable only if it leads to cures for human ailments.
(B) She places a higher value on human cleanliness, convenience, and beauty than she does on the preservation of animal life.
(C) She uses the word “valueâ€
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 14 May 2006
Posts: 1421
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
23
[0], given: 0
|
may be C??? or A...
value of human life vs. human value... are these the same???
(A) I think 2 claims do contradict... and that's because I she talks about value of preserving a life vs. values like cleaniness, etc... which are not life-threatening.
(B) not true... she talks about value both gives on emphasis IMO
(C) this could be it, because she first talks about value of preservation of life and then value of beauty, etc
(D) "all" consumer products??? she doesn't imply "all" part
(E) that's not the point... she isn't too clear on what value she is talking about
|
|
|
|
|
|
CEO
Joined: 20 Nov 2005
Posts: 2934
Schools: Completed at SAID BUSINESS SCHOOL, OXFORD - Class of 2008
Followers: 7
Kudos [?]:
39
[0], given: 0
|
Must be C
_________________
SAID BUSINESS SCHOOL, OXFORD - MBA CLASS OF 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1482
Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Followers: 10
Kudos [?]:
61
[0], given: 13
|
I chose C as well. But the OA is different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 14 May 2006
Posts: 1421
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
23
[0], given: 0
|
then it's b/w A or D... however I don't like D for "ALL" part...
yet A to me has the same idea, that deals with what her definition of value is. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
CEO
Joined: 20 Nov 2005
Posts: 2934
Schools: Completed at SAID BUSINESS SCHOOL, OXFORD - Class of 2008
Followers: 7
Kudos [?]:
39
[0], given: 0
|
dwivedys wrote: I chose C as well. But the OA is different.
Then this should be E.
_________________
SAID BUSINESS SCHOOL, OXFORD - MBA CLASS OF 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 14 May 2006
Posts: 1421
Followers: 4
Kudos [?]:
23
[0], given: 0
|
ps_dahiya wrote: dwivedys wrote: I chose C as well. But the OA is different. Then this should be E. dahiya... can you elaborate on E, please?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 28 Dec 2005
Posts: 764
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
6
[0], given: 0
|
I'll go with E
|
|
|
|
|
|
SVP
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 1744
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
12
[0], given: 0
|
Will go with E.
Susan first argument stress on value of human life. But in her second argument, she clearlt shifts tracks and talks about human values.
She fails to show how preserving human values will help in preserving human lifes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current Student
Joined: 29 Jan 2005
Posts: 5289
Followers: 17
Kudos [?]:
91
[0], given: 0
|
Originally chose C, but now I understand why the answer must be (E). Should have used an extra 30 seconds and reread the argument.
Straight to the error log ----> 
|
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1482
Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Followers: 10
Kudos [?]:
61
[0], given: 13
|
jaynayak wrote: Will go with E.
Susan first argument stress on value of human life. But in her second argument, she clearlt shifts tracks and talks about human values.
She fails to show how preserving human values will help in preserving human lifes.
Excellent! This explanation has cleared my doubts on why E is correct. Thanks much..
|
|
|
|
|
|
Director
Joined: 28 Dec 2005
Posts: 764
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
6
[0], given: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Vercules, Legendaddy, noboru, Marcab, metallicafan, rajeevrks27, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, souvik101990, doe007, MacFauz, PTK, carcass, kissthegmat, Narenn
|
close
