F: We ought not to test the safety of new drugs on sentient animals, s

Question

F: We ought not to test the safety of new drugs on sentient animals, such as dogs and rabbits. Our benefit means their pain, and they are equal to us in the capacity to feel pain.

G: We must carry out such tests; otherwise, we would irresponsibly sacrifice the human lives that could have been saved by the drugs.

Which of the following, if true, is the best objection that could be made from F's point of view to counter G's point?

(A) Even though it is not necessary for people to use cosmetics, cosmetics are also being tested on sentient animals.

(B) Medical science already has at its disposal a great number of drugs and other treatments for serious illnesses.

(C) It is not possible to obtain scientifically adequate results by testing drugs in the test tube, without making tests on living tissue.

(D) Some of the drugs to be tested would save human beings from great pain.

(E) Many tests now performed on sentient animals can be performed equally well on fertilized chicken eggs that are at a very early stage of development.

azhrhasan · Answer

Thought process: We need to find an assumption in G's thought process and then counter it.
Assumption: There is no other way to test the drugs except the said animals.

In order to counter it, we need to find a position which says that there are other ways to test apart from the said animals and still not risk human lives.
E fits the bill perfectly.

colinlin1 · Answer

G: We must carry out such tests; otherwise, we would irresponsibly sacrifice the human lives that could have been saved by the drugs.

There are two aspects in G's statement, 1) the necessity of such tests on sentient animals 2)the sacrifice of human lives. 
The right answer should negative one of the aspects.

Kosukefev · Answer

Hi experts,

Why is A wrong?
Since G said "we would irresponsively sacrifice the human lives that could have been saved by the drugs," I thought it is unreasonable to test cosmetics, which do not save human lives, on animals.

Thanks in advance!

jim441 · Answer

I have the same doubt.  GMATNinja  can you helpp us here!@

GMATNinja · Answer

This one is a bit convoluted, so it's important to really understand the exact positions that F and G are arguing and the exact question that we have to answer.

To start with the question itself: we're asked which answer choice "is the best objection that could be made from F's point of view to counter G's point." In other words, if F and G continue their discussion,  what can F say to defeat G's argument ?

Here's a breakdown of F and G's positions:

F concludes that "we ought not to test the safety of new drugs on sentient animals." He/she supports this conclusion by saying that animal testing causes the animals pain.  
 G concludes that "we must carry out such tests." His/her support is that "otherwise, we would irresponsibly sacrifice the human lives that could have been saved by the drugs."

Notice here that G assumes that there is  no way to get life-saving drugs to humans unless the drugs are tested on sentient animals.  G thinks, "No animal testing? Then no life-saving drugs."

How could F defeat this argument? Look at (E) first:
 
This is a beautiful counterpoint to G's argument. If F said this, he/she would expose the faulty assumption that G made. It IS possible to save human lives without testing on sentient animals.

(E) is a good objection to G's point, so keep (E).

Compare that to (A):
 
G doesn't care about drugs that are not necessary for people to use. He/she only cares about drugs that could potentially save human life. So, answer choice (A) doesn't raise an objection to G's argument -- in fact, G might well agree that it's wrong to test cosmetics on sentient animals! We simply don't know.

We DO know that G cares deeply about life-saving drugs. This answer choice doesn't offer a rebuttal for G's argument concerning these drugs. If F said the info in (A), it would not effectively defeat G's argument that testing certain drugs on sentient animals is necessary for saving human lives.

Eliminate (A).

I hope that helps!

bronaugust · Answer

The examiner wants you as a solver to choose the option that happens to be the best objection F could make to counter the point made by G. Now that you have understood what the examiner wants out of you, you may read and understand the views shared by F and G. F's main point is that it is not right to test the safety of new drugs on sentient animals. The word 'sentient' is crucial. F is not opposed to the idea of testing the safety of new drugs on animals, but F does not want it to be tested on animals that can feel pain, that is on animals that are sentient. G, on the other hand, says that such tests must be carried out to prevent the irresponsible sacrifice of human lives that could have been saved by the drugs. The right answer, clearly an objection that F could make to counter G's point, must introduce a situation that says it is possible to test the safety of new drugs without actually subjecting sentient animals to pain. Now, you shall eliminate the answer options that are either out of scope or too extreme.

(A) Even though it is not necessary for people to use cosmetics, cosmetics are also being tested on sentient animals. -   OUT OF SCOPE   -  Not worried about cosmetics  -    ELIMINATE

(B) Medical science already has at its disposal a great number of drugs and other treatments for serious illnesses. -   OUT OF SCOPE   -  Not worried about what medical science has at its disposal for serious illnesses  -    ELIMINATE

(C) It is not possible to obtain scientifically adequate results by testing drugs in the test tube, without making tests on living tissue. -   OUT OF SCOPE   -  Not worried about whether or not it is possible to obtain scientifically adequate results by testing drugs in the test tube    -    ELIMINATE

(D) Some of the drugs to be tested would save human beings from great pain. -   OUT OF SCOPE   -  Not worried about SOME of the drugs to be tested  -    ELIMINATE

(E) Many tests now performed on sentient animals can be performed equally well on fertilized chicken eggs that are at a very early stage of development. -   CLEARLY INTRODUCES A SITUATION THAT SAYS IT IS POSSIBLE TO TEST THE SAFETY OF NEW DRUGS ON ANIMALS THAT ARE NOT SENTIENT   -  No reason to eliminate  -    MARK AND MOVE

Without a shadow of a doubt, E is the right answer.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

F: We ought not to test the safety of new drugs on sentient animals, s

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

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

F: We ought not to test the safety of new drugs on sentient animals, s

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