Question Description
Physicians have disagreed for years about whether they should be involved in capital punishment of convicted criminals. Some physicians vigorously support participation, often arguing that organs should first be removed for transplantation. One frequent objection to capital punishment is that sometimes techniques don‘t work the first time, resulting in lingering, painful deaths. If physicians would guarantee that a patient would not die in such a way, they would gain the trust of some patients.For any kind of killing, some physicians favour the creation of designated killer technicians. This would free physicians from the taint of killing, keeping their image pure and their hands clean. But is this workable? Insofar as the designated killers are mere technicians, what prevents them from abusing their role? Wouldn‘t it be better for physicians, torn between saving life and honouring patients‘ wishes, to be reluctant killers? Wouldn‘t physicians know best what to do if something went wrong?Many physicians paradoxically endorse mercy killing but refuse to do it themselves. Nor do they think other physicians should kill. Physicians who support mercy killing but who don‘t want physicians to kill commonly emphasize the importance of maintaining the role of the physician as a healer and preserver of life. One poll of American physicians showed 60 percent favouring euthanasia but less than half would perform it themselves. To such physicians, taking life radically conflicts with the symbolic image of physicians. Such conflict, they say, destroys trust in physicians.Discussing this problem of designated killers in 1988, New England Journal of Medicine editor Marcia Angell called the idea an unsavoury prospect. She suggested that mercy killing may one day be the end point of a continuum of good patient care. She asks how any physician can excuse himself from this most basic notion? Dr. Angell concluded, Perhaps, also, those who favour legalizing euthanasia but would not perform it should rethink their position.Dr. Angell implies that it is hypocritical to favour mercy killing but would be unwilling to perform it. Is this true? There are at least two schools of thought. Some thinkers believe that if one favours, say, meat-eating, one should be willing to kill and prepare animals for eating oneself. Others conclude differently, seeing no reason why each person who favours a position must be willing to implement it.Must you be willing to kill a serial murderer to favour capital punishment? Critics say one must. Being face-to-face with one‘s victims creates basic moral qualms and such moral restraints are important to respect. In Stanley Milgram‘s studies on obedience, naive subjects under an experimenter‘s control were dramatically less willing to inflict injury as the victims became closer to subjects under study. In contrast, as the consequences of actions became more remote, such as by pressing a switch which released a bomb on an unseen, unknown populace, it became easier to inflict injury.The reader can conclude that a basic assumption of those in favour of using designated killers is that: A. the practice would evolve into a readily available medical option. B. very few physicians could be convinced to assume the role and duties. C. physicians would have to be present with the patient in order to conduct euthanasia)the practice would evolve into a readily available medical option.b)very few physicians could be convinced to assume the role and duties.c)physicians would have to be present with the patient in order to conduct euthanasia.d)many physicians are reluctant to administer euthanasia because they are not in favour of capital punishment.e)they are eventually complying with the patients‘ wishesCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for GMAT 2025 is part of GMAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the GMAT exam syllabus. Information about Physicians have disagreed for years about whether they should be involved in capital punishment of convicted criminals. Some physicians vigorously support participation, often arguing that organs should first be removed for transplantation. One frequent objection to capital punishment is that sometimes techniques don‘t work the first time, resulting in lingering, painful deaths. If physicians would guarantee that a patient would not die in such a way, they would gain the trust of some patients.For any kind of killing, some physicians favour the creation of designated killer technicians. This would free physicians from the taint of killing, keeping their image pure and their hands clean. But is this workable? Insofar as the designated killers are mere technicians, what prevents them from abusing their role? Wouldn‘t it be better for physicians, torn between saving life and honouring patients‘ wishes, to be reluctant killers? Wouldn‘t physicians know best what to do if something went wrong?Many physicians paradoxically endorse mercy killing but refuse to do it themselves. Nor do they think other physicians should kill. Physicians who support mercy killing but who don‘t want physicians to kill commonly emphasize the importance of maintaining the role of the physician as a healer and preserver of life. One poll of American physicians showed 60 percent favouring euthanasia but less than half would perform it themselves. To such physicians, taking life radically conflicts with the symbolic image of physicians. Such conflict, they say, destroys trust in physicians.Discussing this problem of designated killers in 1988, New England Journal of Medicine editor Marcia Angell called the idea an unsavoury prospect. She suggested that mercy killing may one day be the end point of a continuum of good patient care. She asks how any physician can excuse himself from this most basic notion? Dr. Angell concluded, Perhaps, also, those who favour legalizing euthanasia but would not perform it should rethink their position.Dr. Angell implies that it is hypocritical to favour mercy killing but would be unwilling to perform it. Is this true? There are at least two schools of thought. Some thinkers believe that if one favours, say, meat-eating, one should be willing to kill and prepare animals for eating oneself. Others conclude differently, seeing no reason why each person who favours a position must be willing to implement it.Must you be willing to kill a serial murderer to favour capital punishment? Critics say one must. Being face-to-face with one‘s victims creates basic moral qualms and such moral restraints are important to respect. In Stanley Milgram‘s studies on obedience, naive subjects under an experimenter‘s control were dramatically less willing to inflict injury as the victims became closer to subjects under study. In contrast, as the consequences of actions became more remote, such as by pressing a switch which released a bomb on an unseen, unknown populace, it became easier to inflict injury.The reader can conclude that a basic assumption of those in favour of using designated killers is that: A. the practice would evolve into a readily available medical option. B. very few physicians could be convinced to assume the role and duties. C. physicians would have to be present with the patient in order to conduct euthanasia)the practice would evolve into a readily available medical option.b)very few physicians could be convinced to assume the role and duties.c)physicians would have to be present with the patient in order to conduct euthanasia.d)many physicians are reluctant to administer euthanasia because they are not in favour of capital punishment.e)they are eventually complying with the patients‘ wishesCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for GMAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Physicians have disagreed for years about whether they should be involved in capital punishment of convicted criminals. Some physicians vigorously support participation, often arguing that organs should first be removed for transplantation. One frequent objection to capital punishment is that sometimes techniques don‘t work the first time, resulting in lingering, painful deaths. If physicians would guarantee that a patient would not die in such a way, they would gain the trust of some patients.For any kind of killing, some physicians favour the creation of designated killer technicians. This would free physicians from the taint of killing, keeping their image pure and their hands clean. But is this workable? Insofar as the designated killers are mere technicians, what prevents them from abusing their role? Wouldn‘t it be better for physicians, torn between saving life and honouring patients‘ wishes, to be reluctant killers? Wouldn‘t physicians know best what to do if something went wrong?Many physicians paradoxically endorse mercy killing but refuse to do it themselves. Nor do they think other physicians should kill. Physicians who support mercy killing but who don‘t want physicians to kill commonly emphasize the importance of maintaining the role of the physician as a healer and preserver of life. One poll of American physicians showed 60 percent favouring euthanasia but less than half would perform it themselves. To such physicians, taking life radically conflicts with the symbolic image of physicians. Such conflict, they say, destroys trust in physicians.Discussing this problem of designated killers in 1988, New England Journal of Medicine editor Marcia Angell called the idea an unsavoury prospect. She suggested that mercy killing may one day be the end point of a continuum of good patient care. She asks how any physician can excuse himself from this most basic notion? Dr. Angell concluded, Perhaps, also, those who favour legalizing euthanasia but would not perform it should rethink their position.Dr. Angell implies that it is hypocritical to favour mercy killing but would be unwilling to perform it. Is this true? There are at least two schools of thought. Some thinkers believe that if one favours, say, meat-eating, one should be willing to kill and prepare animals for eating oneself. Others conclude differently, seeing no reason why each person who favours a position must be willing to implement it.Must you be willing to kill a serial murderer to favour capital punishment? Critics say one must. Being face-to-face with one‘s victims creates basic moral qualms and such moral restraints are important to respect. In Stanley Milgram‘s studies on obedience, naive subjects under an experimenter‘s control were dramatically less willing to inflict injury as the victims became closer to subjects under study. In contrast, as the consequences of actions became more remote, such as by pressing a switch which released a bomb on an unseen, unknown populace, it became easier to inflict injury.The reader can conclude that a basic assumption of those in favour of using designated killers is that: A. the practice would evolve into a readily available medical option. B. very few physicians could be convinced to assume the role and duties. C. physicians would have to be present with the patient in order to conduct euthanasia)the practice would evolve into a readily available medical option.b)very few physicians could be convinced to assume the role and duties.c)physicians would have to be present with the patient in order to conduct euthanasia.d)many physicians are reluctant to administer euthanasia because they are not in favour of capital punishment.e)they are eventually complying with the patients‘ wishesCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Physicians have disagreed for years about whether they should be involved in capital punishment of convicted criminals. Some physicians vigorously support participation, often arguing that organs should first be removed for transplantation. One frequent objection to capital punishment is that sometimes techniques don‘t work the first time, resulting in lingering, painful deaths. If physicians would guarantee that a patient would not die in such a way, they would gain the trust of some patients.For any kind of killing, some physicians favour the creation of designated killer technicians. This would free physicians from the taint of killing, keeping their image pure and their hands clean. But is this workable? Insofar as the designated killers are mere technicians, what prevents them from abusing their role? Wouldn‘t it be better for physicians, torn between saving life and honouring patients‘ wishes, to be reluctant killers? Wouldn‘t physicians know best what to do if something went wrong?Many physicians paradoxically endorse mercy killing but refuse to do it themselves. Nor do they think other physicians should kill. Physicians who support mercy killing but who don‘t want physicians to kill commonly emphasize the importance of maintaining the role of the physician as a healer and preserver of life. One poll of American physicians showed 60 percent favouring euthanasia but less than half would perform it themselves. To such physicians, taking life radically conflicts with the symbolic image of physicians. Such conflict, they say, destroys trust in physicians.Discussing this problem of designated killers in 1988, New England Journal of Medicine editor Marcia Angell called the idea an unsavoury prospect. She suggested that mercy killing may one day be the end point of a continuum of good patient care. She asks how any physician can excuse himself from this most basic notion? Dr. Angell concluded, Perhaps, also, those who favour legalizing euthanasia but would not perform it should rethink their position.Dr. Angell implies that it is hypocritical to favour mercy killing but would be unwilling to perform it. Is this true? There are at least two schools of thought. Some thinkers believe that if one favours, say, meat-eating, one should be willing to kill and prepare animals for eating oneself. Others conclude differently, seeing no reason why each person who favours a position must be willing to implement it.Must you be willing to kill a serial murderer to favour capital punishment? Critics say one must. Being face-to-face with one‘s victims creates basic moral qualms and such moral restraints are important to respect. In Stanley Milgram‘s studies on obedience, naive subjects under an experimenter‘s control were dramatically less willing to inflict injury as the victims became closer to subjects under study. In contrast, as the consequences of actions became more remote, such as by pressing a switch which released a bomb on an unseen, unknown populace, it became easier to inflict injury.The reader can conclude that a basic assumption of those in favour of using designated killers is that: A. the practice would evolve into a readily available medical option. B. very few physicians could be convinced to assume the role and duties. C. physicians would have to be present with the patient in order to conduct euthanasia)the practice would evolve into a readily available medical option.b)very few physicians could be convinced to assume the role and duties.c)physicians would have to be present with the patient in order to conduct euthanasia.d)many physicians are reluctant to administer euthanasia because they are not in favour of capital punishment.e)they are eventually complying with the patients‘ wishesCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for GMAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for GMAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Physicians have disagreed for years about whether they should be involved in capital punishment of convicted criminals. Some physicians vigorously support participation, often arguing that organs should first be removed for transplantation. One frequent objection to capital punishment is that sometimes techniques don‘t work the first time, resulting in lingering, painful deaths. If physicians would guarantee that a patient would not die in such a way, they would gain the trust of some patients.For any kind of killing, some physicians favour the creation of designated killer technicians. This would free physicians from the taint of killing, keeping their image pure and their hands clean. But is this workable? Insofar as the designated killers are mere technicians, what prevents them from abusing their role? Wouldn‘t it be better for physicians, torn between saving life and honouring patients‘ wishes, to be reluctant killers? Wouldn‘t physicians know best what to do if something went wrong?Many physicians paradoxically endorse mercy killing but refuse to do it themselves. Nor do they think other physicians should kill. Physicians who support mercy killing but who don‘t want physicians to kill commonly emphasize the importance of maintaining the role of the physician as a healer and preserver of life. One poll of American physicians showed 60 percent favouring euthanasia but less than half would perform it themselves. To such physicians, taking life radically conflicts with the symbolic image of physicians. Such conflict, they say, destroys trust in physicians.Discussing this problem of designated killers in 1988, New England Journal of Medicine editor Marcia Angell called the idea an unsavoury prospect. She suggested that mercy killing may one day be the end point of a continuum of good patient care. She asks how any physician can excuse himself from this most basic notion? Dr. Angell concluded, Perhaps, also, those who favour legalizing euthanasia but would not perform it should rethink their position.Dr. Angell implies that it is hypocritical to favour mercy killing but would be unwilling to perform it. Is this true? There are at least two schools of thought. Some thinkers believe that if one favours, say, meat-eating, one should be willing to kill and prepare animals for eating oneself. Others conclude differently, seeing no reason why each person who favours a position must be willing to implement it.Must you be willing to kill a serial murderer to favour capital punishment? Critics say one must. Being face-to-face with one‘s victims creates basic moral qualms and such moral restraints are important to respect. In Stanley Milgram‘s studies on obedience, naive subjects under an experimenter‘s control were dramatically less willing to inflict injury as the victims became closer to subjects under study. In contrast, as the consequences of actions became more remote, such as by pressing a switch which released a bomb on an unseen, unknown populace, it became easier to inflict injury.The reader can conclude that a basic assumption of those in favour of using designated killers is that: A. the practice would evolve into a readily available medical option. B. very few physicians could be convinced to assume the role and duties. C. physicians would have to be present with the patient in order to conduct euthanasia)the practice would evolve into a readily available medical option.b)very few physicians could be convinced to assume the role and duties.c)physicians would have to be present with the patient in order to conduct euthanasia.d)many physicians are reluctant to administer euthanasia because they are not in favour of capital punishment.e)they are eventually complying with the patients‘ wishesCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Physicians have disagreed for years about whether they should be involved in capital punishment of convicted criminals. Some physicians vigorously support participation, often arguing that organs should first be removed for transplantation. One frequent objection to capital punishment is that sometimes techniques don‘t work the first time, resulting in lingering, painful deaths. If physicians would guarantee that a patient would not die in such a way, they would gain the trust of some patients.For any kind of killing, some physicians favour the creation of designated killer technicians. This would free physicians from the taint of killing, keeping their image pure and their hands clean. But is this workable? Insofar as the designated killers are mere technicians, what prevents them from abusing their role? Wouldn‘t it be better for physicians, torn between saving life and honouring patients‘ wishes, to be reluctant killers? Wouldn‘t physicians know best what to do if something went wrong?Many physicians paradoxically endorse mercy killing but refuse to do it themselves. Nor do they think other physicians should kill. Physicians who support mercy killing but who don‘t want physicians to kill commonly emphasize the importance of maintaining the role of the physician as a healer and preserver of life. One poll of American physicians showed 60 percent favouring euthanasia but less than half would perform it themselves. To such physicians, taking life radically conflicts with the symbolic image of physicians. Such conflict, they say, destroys trust in physicians.Discussing this problem of designated killers in 1988, New England Journal of Medicine editor Marcia Angell called the idea an unsavoury prospect. She suggested that mercy killing may one day be the end point of a continuum of good patient care. She asks how any physician can excuse himself from this most basic notion? Dr. Angell concluded, Perhaps, also, those who favour legalizing euthanasia but would not perform it should rethink their position.Dr. Angell implies that it is hypocritical to favour mercy killing but would be unwilling to perform it. Is this true? There are at least two schools of thought. Some thinkers believe that if one favours, say, meat-eating, one should be willing to kill and prepare animals for eating oneself. Others conclude differently, seeing no reason why each person who favours a position must be willing to implement it.Must you be willing to kill a serial murderer to favour capital punishment? Critics say one must. Being face-to-face with one‘s victims creates basic moral qualms and such moral restraints are important to respect. In Stanley Milgram‘s studies on obedience, naive subjects under an experimenter‘s control were dramatically less willing to inflict injury as the victims became closer to subjects under study. In contrast, as the consequences of actions became more remote, such as by pressing a switch which released a bomb on an unseen, unknown populace, it became easier to inflict injury.The reader can conclude that a basic assumption of those in favour of using designated killers is that: A. the practice would evolve into a readily available medical option. B. very few physicians could be convinced to assume the role and duties. C. physicians would have to be present with the patient in order to conduct euthanasia)the practice would evolve into a readily available medical option.b)very few physicians could be convinced to assume the role and duties.c)physicians would have to be present with the patient in order to conduct euthanasia.d)many physicians are reluctant to administer euthanasia because they are not in favour of capital punishment.e)they are eventually complying with the patients‘ wishesCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Physicians have disagreed for years about whether they should be involved in capital punishment of convicted criminals. Some physicians vigorously support participation, often arguing that organs should first be removed for transplantation. One frequent objection to capital punishment is that sometimes techniques don‘t work the first time, resulting in lingering, painful deaths. If physicians would guarantee that a patient would not die in such a way, they would gain the trust of some patients.For any kind of killing, some physicians favour the creation of designated killer technicians. This would free physicians from the taint of killing, keeping their image pure and their hands clean. But is this workable? Insofar as the designated killers are mere technicians, what prevents them from abusing their role? Wouldn‘t it be better for physicians, torn between saving life and honouring patients‘ wishes, to be reluctant killers? Wouldn‘t physicians know best what to do if something went wrong?Many physicians paradoxically endorse mercy killing but refuse to do it themselves. Nor do they think other physicians should kill. Physicians who support mercy killing but who don‘t want physicians to kill commonly emphasize the importance of maintaining the role of the physician as a healer and preserver of life. One poll of American physicians showed 60 percent favouring euthanasia but less than half would perform it themselves. To such physicians, taking life radically conflicts with the symbolic image of physicians. Such conflict, they say, destroys trust in physicians.Discussing this problem of designated killers in 1988, New England Journal of Medicine editor Marcia Angell called the idea an unsavoury prospect. She suggested that mercy killing may one day be the end point of a continuum of good patient care. She asks how any physician can excuse himself from this most basic notion? Dr. Angell concluded, Perhaps, also, those who favour legalizing euthanasia but would not perform it should rethink their position.Dr. Angell implies that it is hypocritical to favour mercy killing but would be unwilling to perform it. Is this true? There are at least two schools of thought. Some thinkers believe that if one favours, say, meat-eating, one should be willing to kill and prepare animals for eating oneself. Others conclude differently, seeing no reason why each person who favours a position must be willing to implement it.Must you be willing to kill a serial murderer to favour capital punishment? Critics say one must. Being face-to-face with one‘s victims creates basic moral qualms and such moral restraints are important to respect. In Stanley Milgram‘s studies on obedience, naive subjects under an experimenter‘s control were dramatically less willing to inflict injury as the victims became closer to subjects under study. In contrast, as the consequences of actions became more remote, such as by pressing a switch which released a bomb on an unseen, unknown populace, it became easier to inflict injury.The reader can conclude that a basic assumption of those in favour of using designated killers is that: A. the practice would evolve into a readily available medical option. B. very few physicians could be convinced to assume the role and duties. C. physicians would have to be present with the patient in order to conduct euthanasia)the practice would evolve into a readily available medical option.b)very few physicians could be convinced to assume the role and duties.c)physicians would have to be present with the patient in order to conduct euthanasia.d)many physicians are reluctant to administer euthanasia because they are not in favour of capital punishment.e)they are eventually complying with the patients‘ wishesCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Physicians have disagreed for years about whether they should be involved in capital punishment of convicted criminals. Some physicians vigorously support participation, often arguing that organs should first be removed for transplantation. One frequent objection to capital punishment is that sometimes techniques don‘t work the first time, resulting in lingering, painful deaths. If physicians would guarantee that a patient would not die in such a way, they would gain the trust of some patients.For any kind of killing, some physicians favour the creation of designated killer technicians. This would free physicians from the taint of killing, keeping their image pure and their hands clean. But is this workable? Insofar as the designated killers are mere technicians, what prevents them from abusing their role? Wouldn‘t it be better for physicians, torn between saving life and honouring patients‘ wishes, to be reluctant killers? Wouldn‘t physicians know best what to do if something went wrong?Many physicians paradoxically endorse mercy killing but refuse to do it themselves. Nor do they think other physicians should kill. Physicians who support mercy killing but who don‘t want physicians to kill commonly emphasize the importance of maintaining the role of the physician as a healer and preserver of life. One poll of American physicians showed 60 percent favouring euthanasia but less than half would perform it themselves. To such physicians, taking life radically conflicts with the symbolic image of physicians. Such conflict, they say, destroys trust in physicians.Discussing this problem of designated killers in 1988, New England Journal of Medicine editor Marcia Angell called the idea an unsavoury prospect. She suggested that mercy killing may one day be the end point of a continuum of good patient care. She asks how any physician can excuse himself from this most basic notion? Dr. Angell concluded, Perhaps, also, those who favour legalizing euthanasia but would not perform it should rethink their position.Dr. Angell implies that it is hypocritical to favour mercy killing but would be unwilling to perform it. Is this true? There are at least two schools of thought. Some thinkers believe that if one favours, say, meat-eating, one should be willing to kill and prepare animals for eating oneself. Others conclude differently, seeing no reason why each person who favours a position must be willing to implement it.Must you be willing to kill a serial murderer to favour capital punishment? Critics say one must. Being face-to-face with one‘s victims creates basic moral qualms and such moral restraints are important to respect. In Stanley Milgram‘s studies on obedience, naive subjects under an experimenter‘s control were dramatically less willing to inflict injury as the victims became closer to subjects under study. In contrast, as the consequences of actions became more remote, such as by pressing a switch which released a bomb on an unseen, unknown populace, it became easier to inflict injury.The reader can conclude that a basic assumption of those in favour of using designated killers is that: A. the practice would evolve into a readily available medical option. B. very few physicians could be convinced to assume the role and duties. C. physicians would have to be present with the patient in order to conduct euthanasia)the practice would evolve into a readily available medical option.b)very few physicians could be convinced to assume the role and duties.c)physicians would have to be present with the patient in order to conduct euthanasia.d)many physicians are reluctant to administer euthanasia because they are not in favour of capital punishment.e)they are eventually complying with the patients‘ wishesCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Physicians have disagreed for years about whether they should be involved in capital punishment of convicted criminals. Some physicians vigorously support participation, often arguing that organs should first be removed for transplantation. One frequent objection to capital punishment is that sometimes techniques don‘t work the first time, resulting in lingering, painful deaths. If physicians would guarantee that a patient would not die in such a way, they would gain the trust of some patients.For any kind of killing, some physicians favour the creation of designated killer technicians. This would free physicians from the taint of killing, keeping their image pure and their hands clean. But is this workable? Insofar as the designated killers are mere technicians, what prevents them from abusing their role? Wouldn‘t it be better for physicians, torn between saving life and honouring patients‘ wishes, to be reluctant killers? Wouldn‘t physicians know best what to do if something went wrong?Many physicians paradoxically endorse mercy killing but refuse to do it themselves. Nor do they think other physicians should kill. Physicians who support mercy killing but who don‘t want physicians to kill commonly emphasize the importance of maintaining the role of the physician as a healer and preserver of life. One poll of American physicians showed 60 percent favouring euthanasia but less than half would perform it themselves. To such physicians, taking life radically conflicts with the symbolic image of physicians. Such conflict, they say, destroys trust in physicians.Discussing this problem of designated killers in 1988, New England Journal of Medicine editor Marcia Angell called the idea an unsavoury prospect. She suggested that mercy killing may one day be the end point of a continuum of good patient care. She asks how any physician can excuse himself from this most basic notion? Dr. Angell concluded, Perhaps, also, those who favour legalizing euthanasia but would not perform it should rethink their position.Dr. Angell implies that it is hypocritical to favour mercy killing but would be unwilling to perform it. Is this true? There are at least two schools of thought. Some thinkers believe that if one favours, say, meat-eating, one should be willing to kill and prepare animals for eating oneself. Others conclude differently, seeing no reason why each person who favours a position must be willing to implement it.Must you be willing to kill a serial murderer to favour capital punishment? Critics say one must. Being face-to-face with one‘s victims creates basic moral qualms and such moral restraints are important to respect. In Stanley Milgram‘s studies on obedience, naive subjects under an experimenter‘s control were dramatically less willing to inflict injury as the victims became closer to subjects under study. In contrast, as the consequences of actions became more remote, such as by pressing a switch which released a bomb on an unseen, unknown populace, it became easier to inflict injury.The reader can conclude that a basic assumption of those in favour of using designated killers is that: A. the practice would evolve into a readily available medical option. B. very few physicians could be convinced to assume the role and duties. C. physicians would have to be present with the patient in order to conduct euthanasia)the practice would evolve into a readily available medical option.b)very few physicians could be convinced to assume the role and duties.c)physicians would have to be present with the patient in order to conduct euthanasia.d)many physicians are reluctant to administer euthanasia because they are not in favour of capital punishment.e)they are eventually complying with the patients‘ wishesCorrect answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice GMAT tests.