What does 'species as irrelevant' in the passage tell us about the opponents' position?
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: D. They hold that the kind of animal suffering makes no difference to its importance
- Step 1: The opponents say 'suffering is suffering, whatever the species'.
- Step 2: So species does not alter how much the suffering matters.
Answer
They hold that the kind of animal suffering makes no difference to its importance.
Why not the others: 'They believe that only human suffering matters' and 'they think that suffering does not matter' are the opposite of their stance; 'they accept that some species can be used for research' and 'they believe that research on animals is useful' contradict it.
Practise more Science and ethics.
Free questions with an explanation for every one, and full timed LNAT mock tests.