Mary, a veterinary student, has been assigned an experiment in mammali

Question

Mary, a veterinary student, has been assigned an experiment in mammalian physiology that would require her to take a healthy, anesthetized dog and subject it to a drastic blood loss in order to observe the physiological consequences of shock. The dog would neither regain consciousness nor survive the experiment. Mary decides not to do this assignment.

Mary’s decision most closely accords with which one of the following principles?

(A) All other things being equal, gratuitously causing any animal to suffer pain is unjustified.

(B) Taking the life of an animal is not justifiable unless doing so would immediately assist in saving several animal lives or in protecting the health of a person.

(C) The only sufficient justification for experimenting on animals is that future animal suffering is thereby prevented.

(D) Practicing veterinarians have a professional obligation to strive to prevent the unnecessary death of an animal except in cases of severely ill or injured animals whose prospects for recovery are dim.

(E) No one is ever justified in acting with the sole intention of causing the death of a living thing, be it animal or human.

1hit1kill · Accepted Answer

I think this question has already been discussed in some previous posts, please search before posting to avoid duplication.

In case you feel not like to do that, here is my reasoning.

(A) All other things being equal,  gratuitously  causing any animal to suffer pain is unjustified.
The word "gratuiously" contrasts with the stimulus, which clearly states that this experiment is done for mammalian physiology

(D)  Practicing  veterinarians have a professional obligation to strive to prevent the unnecessary death of an animal except in cases of severely ill or injured animals whose prospects for recovery are dim.
Mary is a vet student, not practicing.

(E) No one is ever justified in acting with the  sole intention  of causing the death of a living thing, be it animal or human.
The sole intention of this experiment is not to kill a living thing, but for a study in mammalian physiology.

I leave (B) and (C) to compare, because their meanings are quite similar. Look at the main difference here:
(B) Taking the life of an animal is not justifiable unless doing so would  immediately  assist in saving several animal lives or in protecting the health of a person.
We know that the experiment cannot immediately support animal lives, but cause them to death.

(C) The only sufficient justification for experimenting on animals is that  future  animal suffering is thereby prevented.
We cannot tell whether the experiment will help prevent animal suffering in the future, because it does not mentioned in the stimulus. It may/may not.

shadow · Answer

My thoughts:

First, as always, diagram the argument as best you can. I've placed the conclusion in italics above. The question is asking you to find the statement that is most similar to this conclusion.

A:  This talks about issuing pain on an animal, but the passage talks specifically about an anesthetized animal, so it can't be A 
B:  This indicates that killing an animal would be OK if it helps several animals or a person. However, Mary doesn't go through with it, so this is the opposite of what the conclusion states.  
C:  this is out of scope. The argument doesn't talk about any other animals 
D:  This is my answer. The statement coincides with the conclusion (not killing an animal unnecessarily) unless it is medically necessary (i.e. a terminally ill animal) 
E:  This one is close, but it talks about humans, which the passage does not mention at all

gautrang · Answer

My pick is B.

D is incorrect because Mary is a student, she is not a Practicing Vetnerian. D rules only apply for Practicing Vetnerian.

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Explanation

The general principle that justifies vet student Mary’s refusal to carry out the experiment is  (B) . It provides only two possible exceptions (immediately saving a person, or saving several animals) to a flat injunction against taking an animal’s life, and neither of those exceptions pertains to this particular case, so the principle stands: Mary is right in not participating in taking this dog’s life.

(A)  wouldn’t support her decision, since the dog is anesthetized; it wouldn’t feel any pain. Moreover, if there were pain involved, such pain wouldn’t necessarily qualify as  “gratuitous,”  since there would be at least one positive result, namely Mary’s increased knowledge.

(C)  The experiment is designed to make Mary a more knowledgeable vet, and that increased knowledge might very well prevent some animal suffering in future. Thus, by  (C) ’s own terms, Mary might be wrong in refusing to participate.

(D)  rules out most unnecessary death, but who’s to say that this dog’s death isn’t  “necessary”  in order for Mary to become a competent vet? Moreover, Mary isn’t a practicing vet, she’s a student, so this one is clearly outside the scope.

(E)  isn’t applicable because the  “sole intention”  of the experiment isn’t to kill the dog. It’s also designed to teach Mary about the physiological consequences of shock.

Answer: B

kumarvibhuti630 · Answer

Mary, a veterinary student, has been assigned an experiment in mammalian physiology that would require her to take a healthy, anesthetized dog and subject it to a drastic blood loss in order to observe the physiological consequences of shock. The dog would neither regain consciousness nor survive the experiment. Mary decides not to do this assignment.

preThinking-> Mary's reasoning should be around not regaining consciousness or death of healthy animal.

(A) All other things being equal, gratuitously causing any animal to suffer   pain   is unjustified.
Incorrect -> not according to prethink, talks about pain

(B) Taking the life of an animal is not justifiable unless doing so would immediately assist in saving several animal lives or in protecting the health of a person.
Correct-> exactly around our prethinking, where mary is supposed to kill some animal for performing some experiment, which is not helping instantenously.

(C) The only sufficient justification for   experimenting  on animals  is that future animal suffering is thereby prevented.
Incorrect-> Talks about experimentation, not along the line for death

(D)  Practicing veterinarians  have a professional obligation to strive to prevent the unnecessary death of an animal except in cases of severely ill or injured animals whose prospects for recovery are dim.
Incorrect-> Irrelevant, talks about practioners

(E) No one is ever justified in acting with the   sole intention   of causing the death of a living thing, be it animal or human.
Incorrect-> here sole intention is not death

Mary, a veterinary student, has been assigned an experiment in mammali

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Mary, a veterinary student, has been assigned an experiment in mammali

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards