Ok, I think that every person studying for the LSAT often gets confused by some of the questions from various sections of the prep. LSATs. So I thought why don't we post those questions which we don't really understand, especially if a prep. book doesn't have an explanation.
Ok, here is one question from LR which in my opinion can have 2 best answers, but maybe you think differently and can help me to understand why I got it wrong.
Mary, a veterinary student, has been assigned an experiment in mammalian physiology that would require her to take a healthy, anesthetized dog and subject it to a drastic blood loss in order to observe the physiological consequences of schock. The dog would neither regain consciousness nor survive the experiment. Mary decides not to do the assignment.
Mary's decision most closely accords with which one of the following principles:
A) All other things being equal, gratuitously causing any animal to suffer pain is unjustified.
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.
C)The only sufficient justification for experimenting on animals is that future animal suffering is thereby prevented.
D) Practicing veterinarians have a prof. obligation to strive to prevent the unnecessary death of an animal whose prospects for recovery are dim.
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.