Section A: Multiple Choice

Download 322,91 Kb.
Date conversion30.01.2017
Size322,91 Kb.
  1   2

National Admissions Test for Law (LNAT)
Sample Test 1 (2010)

The test has 2 separate sections, A and B.

Section A: Multiple Choice

This section is divided into 12 sub sections; each sub section has between 3 and 4 questions.

You should answer all 42 multiple choice questions in Section A, selecting one of the possible answers listed for each question.

Time allowed: 95 minutes

Section B: Essay

This section has 5 essay questions.

You should select and answer one question in Section B.
Time allowed: 40 minutes
1 Physicians and Patients

Traditional medical oaths and codes prescribe a physician’s character, motives, and duties. Typically they portray ideal physicians as devoted to the welfare of patients and to advancement of the medical profession and medical knowledge, responding compassionately to the suffering of patients, humbly mindful of the limits of their curative powers and the harms they may unintentionally cause. The Hippocratic injunction “Strive to help, but above all, do no harm” is the ruling maxim.

Although still supported by religious texts and medical tradition, this ideal physician is increasingly criticized as “paternalistic”, too willing to act on judgments of a patient’s best interests without the patient’s knowledge or consent. To treat without consulting a patient is to assume that a patient does or should share one’s own assessment of the risks, benefits, and burdens of treatment. But current hospital specialists, it is said, rarely know their patients (or themselves) well enough to make this assumption without serious risk of ignorant arrogance. Given hospital hierarchies, such paternalistic physicians are seen to resemble Victorian patriarchs.

Some physicians reject such criticism as intervention by lawyers, philosophers, feminists, and other social critics ignorant of the realities of medical and hospital life. But the “neo-paternalists” admit that physicians should attend more carefully to a patient’s desires and to give them greater weight in arriving at a treatment of choice. Unmollified critics, however, continue to insist that treatment choice belongs to the patient, however imprudent, and not to the physician, however attentive and knowing. To curb Hippocratic paternalism they define a range of patients’ specific rights to be told about, and choose among, alternative treatments, including a right to refuse all, even life-saving treatment.

These rights confer adult status on patients whom paternalists regard as children, replacing quasi-familial with quasi-legal relations. A patient’s “free and informed consent” reflects an implicit therapeutic contract, defined and reviewed as treatment proceeds. A physician who treats without such consent is not a patriarch, but a batterer. Less litigiously, these rights define a “principle of autonomy” traced to Kantian notions of respect for persons and inherent human dignity.

Attempts to apply this principle have raised questions of scope: Is a patient’s “free and informed consent” needed for routine procedures with slight or rare risks? Is consent required if a patient would, in the physician’s judgment, be “medically harmed” by information about diagnosis and prognosis? Are refusals to be honoured even if patients risk death, as do surgical patients religiously opposed to blood transfusion? Does the principle (contra Kant) cover voluntary euthanasia? Can children or mentally ill patients give informed consent at least for some procedures? Can parents or other surrogates give or refuse “substituted” consent when a patient is too ill to consider the options or to speak.

Whatever the scope of a principle of patient autonomy, this challenge to paternalism has shifted the categories of concern. Physicians’ power, not their character, has become the issue. Consequently, “Who is to decide?” has become more pressing than “What is to be done?” Proper procedure has become as important, in medical ethics, as correct conclusions.

1. Which of the following pairs is not used as an opposition in the passage?

(a) ideal physician and Victorian patriarch

(b) adult and children

(c) quasi-familial and quasi-legal

(d) patriarch and batterer

(e) paternalism and autonomy

2. The writer takes the view that:

(a) physicians need to change their attitudes

(b) some doctors are too old-fashioned

(c) we need to reconsider the validity of the Hippocratic oath

(d) the most important issue in medical ethics today is who decides

(e) the patient should decide on their treatment, not the physician

3. Why might voluntary euthanasia be against Kantian principles?

(a) It is not a medical treatment

(b) It does not respect human dignity

(c) It is contrary to natural law

(d) It undermines the patient/physician relationship

(e) It is not an example of autonomy

2 Top Civil Servants
The conservatism of top civil servants in advanced capitalist countries needs to be seen not in general terms but in specific ones, related to the class configurations and hierarchies of these particular societies, and to have as its major purpose not simply the defence of a social order but of the particular social order typical of these societies in all its major manifestations. In other words, top civil servants in these countries are not simply conservative in general; they are conservative in the sense that they are, within their allotted sphere, the conscious or unconscious allies of existing economic and social elites.
There is more than one reason for this. The most obvious one is that the social provenance, and the education and class situation of top civil servants makes them part of a specific milieu whose ideas, prejudices and outlook they are most likely to share, and which is bound to influence, in fact to define, their view of the ‘national interest’. But this is by no means all. There is also the fact – which is often overlooked in this context – that the ideological ‘soundness’ of top civil servants (and of many others as well) is not a matter which, in these countries, is now left to chance. Recruitment and promotion are no longer in the main determined on the basis of social provenance or religious affiliation. Nor are civil servants in these systems expected to subscribe to a specific political doctrine or ideology. But they are nevertheless expected to dwell within a spectrum of thought of which strong conservatism forms one extreme and weak ‘reformism’ the other. Outside that spectrum, there lurks a grave danger, and in some countries the absolute necessity, of a blighted administrative career or of no administrative career at all.
In all capitalist countries, though with different degrees of thoroughness (the United States easily leading the field), candidates to the civil service and members of it are subjected to screening procedures and security checks which have become a familiar and permanent feature of Western administrative life. The official reason given for these procedures is that they are required to exclude ‘security risks’ from employment by the state, particularly in important and ‘sensitive’ posts. But the notion of what constitutes a ‘security risk’ is an elastic one and can easily be stretched to encompass anyone whose opinions and ideas on important issues depart from a framework of ‘soundness’ defined in terms of the prevailing conservative consensus. Moreover, the knowledge which civil servants have of what is expected, indeed required, of them in ideological and political terms is likely to be more than sufficient to ensure that those of them who might be tempted to stray from the narrow path they are expected to tread will subdue and suppress the temptation. Their number is anyway not likely to be large.

  1. Which of these pairs (one drawn from each paragraph) offers the probable reasons for the writer’s use of italics for certain words in the first paragraph, and inverted commas around certain words in the third paragraph?

First paragraph

Third paragraph


Because he is drawing attention to the difference between these words

Because these words are technical terms


Because he wants to emphasise these words

Because he has used these words incorrectly


Because he wants to draw the reader’s attention to the way these words are used

Because these words are being used colloquially


Because he wants to draw the reader’s attention to the way these words are used

Because he has used these words ironically


Because he is drawing attention to the difference between these words

Because he wants to emphasise these words


The writer here uses the word ‘conservative’ to mean:

  1. consciously sympathetic to the elites

  1. a group on the right of a ‘spectrum of thought’

  1. those who are ideologically ‘sound’

  1. those educated at private schools

  1. a group who understand the ‘national interest’


The writer suggests that the recruitment procedures for top civil servants:

  1. can be manipulated to suit the situation

  1. allow candidates to say what is expected

  1. are essentially a matter of chance

  1. no longer depend on religious affiliations

  1. are applied with different degrees of thoroughness

3 A New Strange Mask For Science
The public image of science changed in [the twentieth] century. It changed because the smiling mask it had been wearing suddenly fell away to reveal a face that was as horrible as it was wonderful. Primarily this happened because science over the last hundred years has become so visible to so many. A technological explosion as well as environmental anxiety, nuclear weapons, mechanized total war and all the moral and political complexities of economic growth have put science at the centre of the public realm. It has been brought to trial before a new kind of jury – the jury of popular sentiment, whose verdicts are cruder and whose anxieties more politically potent than those of the philosophers. Suddenly science’s achievements can simply be viewed as crimes, its knowledge as sin.
The importance of this for my argument is that it means science has been judged from the outside. The pursuit of objective knowledge for its own sake is no longer the private mission of an elite, subject only to its own demands and sense of virtue. In such an enclosed context it could allow itself to believe its knowledge did include the only truth, that it would one day encompass the entire universe both human and inhuman. But its sudden obvious success both as creator and destroyer convinced us all that science lacked some vital human input. If it could do so much for our world, science could no longer be free. For its very autonomy, which had once been its proud badge of independence from authority, might now be seen as a blank cheque, rashly handed to a greedy and destructive child.
From this perspective, faith in science begins to look like irresponsibility. We had allowed science a dangerous liberty, a removal from the limitations of ordinary human concerns. We had done this in honour of its rigour and effectiveness. And we had done so because, according to the wisdom of the Enlightenment, knowledge must, by its very nature, be free of our subjective values. It was the only way the scientific world could be certain that it was knowledge as opposed to just another point of view. Science, indeed, had offered us an escape from the tyranny of mere ‘points of view’.
But what the horrors and anxieties of the twentieth century revealed was that such a severance of knowledge from value has terrible implications. Philosophers may have been aware of them for centuries. Now, after Hiroshima, after Dachau, after Cuba, we all are.
All of which is true. But the point is that the scientist himself can – and does – ignore such anxieties. A physicist, chemist or biologist can easily construct a wall in his imagination between his work and the wider issues of science in the world. He will argue, as most do, that human knowledge is a progressive, inevitable and value-free investigation of the nature of the world. It will happen whether we worry about it or not. Certainly he may be aware of real ethical and political problems, but these occur only after the facts of the hard science. The atom is ‘split’ and later comes the moral quandary over the use of nuclear weapons.
This division allows science to retain its authority. In spite of what may happen in the outside world, the scientist can still be convinced he is on the one true path to truth, complete truth. Any shortcomings of science when it is brought into contact with the world arise because the truth is as yet inadequate, incomplete.
1. In the passage the writer argues that


science can be equated with explosive developments in technology


science is a value-free form of knowledge


science involves the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake


scientific investigation is an elite pursuit


scientific investigation must involve experimental tests

2. In the passage the writer does not claim that science


is at the centre of the public realm


has become much more visible


requires some human input


has been judged from the outside


should be free of our subjective values

3. Which of the following most closely corresponds to the link made in the passage between the splitting of the atom and the development of nuclear weapons?


The flight of the first jet plane and the rise in global temperatures.


The invention of the printing press and the destruction of the world’s forests.


The launch of the drug thalidomide and the appearance of limbless babies.


The first manufacture of cigarettes and the spread of lung cancer.


The discovery of DNA’s structure and the technique of human cloning.

  1   2

The database is protected by copyright © 2016
send message

    Main page