Some people argue that it is wrong for doctors to lie about their patients illnesses. They point out that doctors are hired professionals, just like mechanics hired to repair a car or carpenters employed to fix a roof, and that we would not tolerate being misled about such work. Therefore doctors who lie about illnesses violate this good faith contract, and this is clearly wrong. What is the main conclusion of this argument?

Introduction / Context:
This is a short argument about professional ethics. The passage compares doctors with other hired workers such as mechanics and carpenters. It states that we would not accept being misled about the condition of our car or roof, and then claims that in the same way doctors who lie about illnesses violate a good faith contract. We are asked to identify the main conclusion, that is, the central claim that the author wants us to accept based on the supporting reasons.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Doctors are hired to do a job for patients, similar to mechanics or carpenters hired to perform specific tasks.
• We would not tolerate not being told the truth by such workers about the condition of our car or roof.
• If these workers lied, they would violate a good faith contract with us.
• Doctors who lie about their patients illnesses similarly violate a good faith contract.
• The author treats this violation as clearly wrong.

Concept / Approach:
To find the main conclusion, we look for the statement that the rest of the argument supports and which is not itself used mainly as support for something further. Supporting statements include analogies and general claims about how we treat other workers. The strongest value judgment, clearly wrong, is usually a good candidate for the conclusion. Here the key statement that the author wants us to accept is that it is wrong for doctors to lie about their patients illnesses. The assertion that doctors are just hired workers like mechanics and carpenters is a premise used to set up the analogy, not the final claim.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Identify the last sentence or explicit judgment. The passage ends by saying that doctors who lie about their patients illnesses violate good faith contracts and that this is clearly wrong.Step 2: Notice that the earlier sentences are building a comparison between doctors and other workers to support that final moral judgment.Step 3: Mark which statement has normative content, that is, expresses what is right or wrong, rather than just describing how things are. That statement is that it is wrong for doctors to lie about their patients illnesses.Step 4: Recognise that the classification of doctors as hired workers like mechanics and carpenters is used as a premise to argue that the same honesty standards should apply.Step 5: Conclude that the main conclusion is option B, while option A is only a supporting premise.

Verification / Alternative check:
Test whether the argument would still make sense if we removed statement A. Without the claim that doctors are hired workers like mechanics, the analogy would be weaker, but the author could still argue that it is wrong for doctors to lie. This shows A is a supporting reason, not the central point.On the other hand, if we remove the claim that it is wrong for doctors to lie, there is no clear purpose to discussing mechanics, carpenters, and good faith contracts. This shows that B is the main conclusion.Check the answer options and see that only option B states the moral judgment the entire argument is aiming at.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option A is a premise used to support the conclusion through analogy. It explains why similar expectations of truth telling should apply, but it is not the final point.Option C is wrong because only B is the argument s conclusion; A does not function as a second conclusion.Option D is wrong because B clearly matches the central claim that the author wants us to accept.

Common Pitfalls:
Students sometimes mistake a strong sounding premise, especially one with a clear example, for the main conclusion. The conclusion is usually the statement that expresses the writer s main opinion or prescription.Another pitfall is to overlook the final moral judgment in favour of earlier descriptive sentences. It is always helpful to ask what the author is trying to convince the reader to believe or do.

Final Answer:
Therefore, the central claim supported by the rest of the argument is that it is wrong for doctors to lie about their patients illnesses.