Examkin

Question

Difficulty: Very hardSufficient Assumption

Bioethicist: A clinical medical trial is ethically permissible only if it prioritizes patient welfare above the pursuit of scientific discovery. Furthermore, a trial prioritizes patient welfare only if its participants are not subjected to disproportionate physiological risks. Unfortunately, obtaining statistically robust efficacy data in early-stage oncology trials invariably requires administering drug dosages that approach maximum tolerated toxic thresholds. Consequently, none of the early-stage oncology trials currently underway at the Apex Research Institute are ethically permissible.

The conclusion drawn by the bioethicist follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

  1. A
    Any trial that subjects its participants to disproportionate physiological risks must administer drug dosages that approach maximum tolerated toxic thresholds, and all early-stage oncology trials at the Apex Research Institute involve obtaining statistically robust efficacy data.
  2. B
    At least some of the early-stage oncology trials currently underway at the Apex Research Institute require administering drug dosages that approach maximum tolerated toxic thresholds.
  3. C
    Any trial that subjects its participants to disproportionate physiological risks fails to prioritize patient welfare above the pursuit of scientific discovery, thereby rendering it ethically impermissible.
  4. Every early-stage oncology trial currently underway at the Apex Research Institute involves obtaining statistically robust efficacy data, and the administration of drug dosages that approach maximum tolerated toxic thresholds inherently subjects participants to disproportionate physiological risks.Answer
  5. E
    All early-stage oncology trials always require administering drug dosages that approach maximum tolerated toxic thresholds, regardless of the specific research institute conducting them.

Answer

The correct assumption must perfectly bridge two distinct gaps: connecting the Apex trials to the necessity of obtaining robust data, and connecting the administration of toxic dosages to disproportionate physiological risks.
The argument requires a sufficient assumption to prove that all Apex trials are ethically impermissible. By establishing that all Apex trials involve obtaining robust data, we know they must administer near-toxic dosages (from the third premise). By further establishing that near-toxic dosages cause disproportionate physiological risks, the formal chain is complete: Apex trials -> robust data -> near-toxic dosages -> disproportionate risks -> not prioritizing welfare -> not ethically permissible. The correct answer provides both necessary bridges to make the conclusion 100% deductively valid.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Map the conditional premises provided in the stimulus.
1) Ethically Permissible -> Prioritizes Welfare. 2) Prioritizes Welfare -> No Disproportionate Risks. 3) Obtaining Robust Data -> Administering Toxic Dosages.
Formalizing the logic reveals the established deductive chain. Combining 1 and 2 gives: Ethically Permissible -> No Disproportionate Risks. The contrapositive is: Disproportionate Risks -> Not Ethically Permissible.
2
Identify the core conclusion.
Apex Trials -> Not Ethically Permissible.
This is the final claim the bioethicist is trying to prove, marked by the indicator 'Consequently'.
3
Identify the missing logical links between the premises and the conclusion.
Gap 1: The argument assumes Apex trials are obtaining robust data (Apex Trials -> Obtaining Robust Data). Gap 2: The argument assumes administering toxic dosages constitutes a disproportionate physiological risk (Administering Toxic Dosages -> Disproportionate Risks).
Without these connections, the fact that Apex is conducting trials cannot trigger the rule about toxic dosages, nor can the toxic dosages trigger the rule about ethical permissibility.
4
Select the option that fully guarantees both missing links.
The correct option must formally state both required conditional relationships to make the argument 100% deductively valid.
A sufficient assumption must leave no logical ambiguity, entirely closing all gaps between the premises and the conclusion.

Key Concept

Formal Logic: Identifying Nested Conditional Gaps in Sufficient Assumption Questions
Rate this question

Topics

Sufficient Assumption

More questions from this topic