Law School Discussion

Please Ididnotdoit,

Let's not resort to xenophobic hateful ranting. Still, Mr. Lensoy should try to come up with some negotiation to pay back the 10,000, or part of it, no matter how long it takes.
running away from an obligation is wrong, and bad, and wrongbad( this denotes a unique combination of wrongness and badness, It's even worse than wrong and bad combined seperately. Synergy baby!)

good luck

Please start your own post discussing your opinions about this course and the legal subject in general.

This may give other students some insight into where their academic interests might be.

I looked at your lsat question and in about a minute or two I cam to choose B. This question is difficult but not extremely so, also, the answers are not that difficult to sort through.

Here was my analysis
first: what is the question?
"Mary's decision most closely accords with which one of the following principles:" OK, so then we naturally ask, what did she do?
Simply put: she refused to do an experiment in which "observing shock"
requires killing a dog. SIMPLY PUT that is all that is said.
(note: the dog does not regain conciousness...therefore it might not feel pain---but you cannot be expected to know this)

I think people getting confused here are over analyzing things!

ok......so she will not kill an animal for the purpose of....observing shock. well.....what does it mean to observe shock?
I DON"T KNOW....therefore observing shock is just that, nothing more.
It is not, saving lives or anything else.


STAGE 2 analyzing the answers!

A) All other things being equal, gratuitously causing any animal to suffer pain is unjustified
('pain' is never mentioned, possibly the dog feels none (it's unconscious) and so this principle is not necceserily forcing her to refrain from the experiment)

B) Taking the life of an animal is not justifiable unless doing so would immediately assist in saving several animal lives or in protecting the health of a person.
(sounds ok ---possible----observation is not saving lives or protecting lives: it is observation)
C)The only sufficient justification for experimenting on animals is that future animal suffering is thereby prevented.
(definitely not-this is over the top and says too much, this principle could guide her actions but, what if this experiment helped frevent future animal suffering  we don't know-------THIS is crossed out!)

D) Practicing veterinarians have a prof. obligation to strive to prevent the unnecessary death of an animal whose prospects for recovery are dim.
( same as C ------even moreso what the hell does 'preventing' have to do with not experimenting on a dog.)

E)No one is ever justified in acting with the sole intention of causing the death of a living thing, be it animal or human.
(This is also over the top, albiet......her decision would conform to this principle, but this principle is so expansive that you would look for
one that more closely conforms to her situation. This is a blanket principle that is too generalized----the quetsion asks for the principle to which
mary's decision 'most closely accords' : this means that the correct principle should not be the more general of two possible principles.


SO...............it;'s A or B....... now, since B is very specific as it reads "Immediately assist in saving the lives....protecting health"
and we know that this experiment is an observation which clearly is not providing any 'immediate assistance" B is the better choice.
Mary is refraining from taking the life of an animal in an experiment which will not provide immidiate assistance.

zev
I hope this helped
p.s. 177, waitlisted to columbia, in at uva, waiting on NYU