Free LSAT Practice
LSAT Practice Test
LSAT Practice Test Videos
eBook: The Road to 180
Law School Top 100
LSAT Test Proctor
LSAT Logic Games
Apple App Store
Digital LSAT Simulator
Campus Rep Internship
Fee Waiver Scholarship
LSAT Test Dates
LSAT Message Board
June 2018 LSAT
Lawyer: In a risky surgical procedure that is performed only with the patient's informed consent, doctors intentional...
on July 14 at 10:06PM
Why is D a better answer than B?
on July 15 at 05:00AM
Happy to help. Let's look at (B) and (D).
(B) says, "If a medical procedure is known to carry a very high risk
of causing the patientâ€™s death, then only if the patient does die can
the doctors be guilty of manslaughter."
(B) is about what's required in order to be found guilty of
manslaughter, as the term "only if" introduces the concept that the
patient's death is required in order to be guilty of manslaughter.
However, what we want to know is what is sufficient to prove that
someone is guilty of manslaughter, not what is necessary for it. Thus,
we can get rid of (B).
(D) says, "Deliberately bringing about the cessation of a personâ€™s
life functions is manslaughter if and only if the cessation is
(D) would strengthen the argument a lot because it states that if
someone deliberately stops a person's life functions and if the
stopping is permanent, then it classifies as manslaughter. The phrase
"if and only if" signifies that this is a biconditional relationship,
so this is about both what's necessary to be manslaughter as well as
what's sufficient to make something be classified as manslaughter.
We're concerned with what's sufficient to make something manslaughter,
and (D) provides us with what is sufficient (if someone deliberately
stops a person's life and the stopping is permanent), so this is the
correct answer choice.
Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any more questions!
Posting to the forum is only allowed for members with active accounts.