What weakness does the author find in the supporters' argument?
Opponents of animal research say that suffering is suffering, whatever the species, and that no human benefit can justify it. Supporters answer that the benefits to patients are enormous and cannot be obtained any other way. Both positions are less secure than they sound. The first treats species as irrelevant while relying on a claim, that suffering matters, that most of us hold because of how we experience it ourselves. The second asserts that no alternative exists without checking whether alternatives have been funded. Where non-animal methods such as cell cultures and computer models are developed, they often replace animal tests. A sensible policy would therefore demand that researchers show why alternatives are not available before a licence is granted, and would reassess the answer every few years.
Answer and explanation
Correct answer: A. It asserts that no alternative exists without testing whether alternatives have been properly funded
- Step 1: The passage says the second position 'asserts that no alternative exists without checking whether alternatives have been funded'.
- Step 2: That is the weakness named.
Answer
It asserts that no alternative exists without testing whether alternatives have been properly funded.
Why not the others: The supporters do not admit failure, the 'species' point is aimed at the opponents, and accuracy of cell cultures is not claimed.
Practise more Science and ethics.
Free questions with an explanation for every one, and full timed LNAT mock tests.