Confusing questions from prep. LSAT

[cvetok]

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.

Thanks
 

[Anti_Ivy]

I'm guessing A.  Which answer choice is correct?  If it is A, I'll explain how I came to that conclusion.

[PleaseGod =)]

I think the answer is E

A is too general
B/C goes against the logic of the question
D is not relevant to the question

Bare in mind, I could be totally wrong.  I'm still relatively new at this LSAT stuff and am only scoring mid-high 150s in the few practice tests I've taken so far.  Im taking the October LSAT so hopefully 5 months of prep is enough.  =)

[zpops]

I think C is the only answer that could be correct.  I'll explain why each other answer is wrong, if you want.

[jgruber]

I go for B.  'Gratuituously' would disqualify A.

[dsong02]

id say E.

With A), the passage doesnt talk about pain
B) attempting to justify without basis
C) same as B
D) not talking about practicing veterinarians/cant determine if the death is unnecessary

I dont think E is even that great of an answer because its an extreme answer (No one...) but I think its the best answer. 

but i might be completely off since this is a principle question...and i have no principles.

[dsong02]

hey, these are kinda fun...

more, more!!!

[OSUHopeful]

IS the correct answer B?

If you were thinking like I was, you probably narrowed it down to answers B&C, am I right?  If so, the reason I say it is B is that C would actually strengthen the argument to experiment, would it not? Or, perhaps you narrowed it down to B&E in which my reasoning for E being incorrect is below.

A is incorrect since the dog is not suffering pain
D is incorrect because the animal is healthy and prospects are not dim
E is incorrect because of the strong, absolute verbage

That's my take, perhaps other experienced LSAT takers can weigh in.  Please let me know what the right answer is, cuz now I curious

[jgruber]

I think C is the only answer that could be correct.  I'll explain why each other answer is wrong, if you want.

C is too absolute.  the book i read said stay away from absolutes.

[zpops]

A) All other things being equal, gratuitously causing any animal to suffer pain is unjustified.

Gratuitous is a strong word, which should flag this answer.  Regardless, the dog is anesthetized and therefore can't feel pain.

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.

We have nothing to justify this response.  The reference to the "health of a person" should be a major tip off that this answer is out of the scope of the question.  Remember, we're talking about a veterinary student here.

C)The only sufficient justification for experimenting on animals is that future animal suffering is thereby prevented.

There is no reason to assume this experiment will prevent future suffering, since we don't have information about that.  For all we know, this experiment could merely be an explanatory tool, not one that will teach her how to help any animal.  Therefore, we have no compelling reason to reject this answer.

D) Practicing veterinarians have a prof. obligation to strive to prevent the unnecessary death of an animal whose prospects for recovery are dim.

She's not a practicing veterinarian.

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.

Her sole intention is not to cause the death, her intention is to learn about physiology.