Which of these would the author most likely accept?
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: B. Licences for animal research should depend on a showing that no suitable alternative exists
- Step 1: The final sentence proposes requiring researchers to show why alternatives are not available before a licence is granted.
- Step 2: The only choice consistent with this is "Licences for animal research should depend on a showing that no suitable alternative exists".
Answer
Licences for animal research should depend on a showing that no suitable alternative exists.
Why not the others: Immediate cessation and unchanged continuation are rejected by the author's middle position; the passage says alternatives often replace animal tests; and the author wants a demonstration, not self-judgement.
Practise more Science and ethics.
Free questions with an explanation for every one, and full timed LNAT mock tests.