Loading...
Legislator: Relatively few people in this society object to allowing the potential use of gene replacement techniques to treat disease, but most react negatively to allowing the use of such techniques to enhance people's performance in competitive sports. A clear distinction should therefore be made between medical treatment and performance enhancement when regulations concerning gene replacement are being formulated, because otherwise __________
Which of the following most logically completes the passage?
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| Relatively few people in this society object to allowing the potential use of gene replacement techniques to treat disease |
|
| but most react negatively to allowing the use of such techniques to enhance people's performance in competitive sports |
|
| A clear distinction should therefore be made between medical treatment and performance enhancement when regulations concerning gene replacement are being formulated |
|
| because otherwise _____ |
|
The argument starts by showing contrasting public opinions about gene replacement (accepted for medical treatment, rejected for sports enhancement), then recommends making clear distinctions in regulations, and finally begins to explain what bad thing would happen if we don't make these distinctions.
Regulations for gene replacement should clearly distinguish between medical treatment and performance enhancement uses.
The legislator uses public opinion data as evidence to support a policy recommendation, with the structure being: [Evidence about public attitudes] → [Policy recommendation] → [Justification for why this policy is needed]
Logically Completes - We need to find what negative consequence would happen if regulations don't make a clear distinction between medical treatment and performance enhancement uses of gene replacement
The claims are about public attitudes (most people support medical use, most oppose sports enhancement) and policy recommendations (regulations should distinguish between these uses)
Since the legislator argues for making a clear distinction based on different public attitudes, we need to think about what bad things would happen if regulations lump both uses together. The completion should logically follow from the contrast in public opinion - if people feel differently about medical vs sports uses, then treating them the same in regulations would likely cause problems with public acceptance or support
This choice logically completes the argument by connecting the evidence about contrasting public opinions to a consequence of ignoring those differences. If regulations don't distinguish between medical treatment (which people support) and sports enhancement (which people oppose), then the regulations won't accurately capture what most people in society actually think about these different uses. This creates a clear cause-and-effect relationship that supports the legislator's recommendation.
This choice introduces an entirely new concept about 'purposes yet unimagined' that has no connection to the argument's focus on the distinction between medical treatment and sports enhancement. The legislator's reasoning is specifically about known public attitudes toward these two identified uses, not about unknown future applications.
This choice shifts the focus to whether opinions have a 'scientific basis,' but the legislator's argument is about reflecting public sentiment in regulations, not about the scientific validity of those opinions. The strength or weakness of the scientific foundation behind public attitudes is irrelevant to the policy-making point being made.
This choice brings up a completely unrelated issue about conceptions of athletic ability changing over time. The legislator's argument is about current public attitudes and how regulations should reflect them, not about how athletic concepts might evolve in the future.
This choice discusses the 'potential benefits' never being realized, but the legislator's argument isn't about maximizing benefits. It's about creating regulations that appropriately reflect different public attitudes toward different uses of the technology.