LNAT Sample Test 1 2010 - Practice Test

Sep 18, 2026

LNAT Sample Test 1 (2010) provides exam-style materials for the National Admissions Test for Law, including instructions for completing two sections. Section A contains 42 multiple-choice questions across 12 sub-sections and allows 95 minutes. Section B presents five essay questions where the candidate selects one and writes within 40 minutes. The text includes reading passages on medical ethics and patient autonomy, followed by structured questions assessing comprehension and argument evaluation.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryExam

FormatPDF

Pages33

Reading Time1 h 23 min

AccessFree to download

Sample Test 1 (2010)

Section A: Multiple Choice

Section B: Essay

1 Physicians and Patients

2 Top Civil Servants

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 LNAT: The National Admissions Test for Law Sample Test 1 2010 © LNAT Consortium Ltd 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. Sample Test 1 1 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 t

FAQs

How many questions are in Section A and how long is it timed?

Section A contains 42 multiple-choice questions and is timed for 95 minutes.

What is the format of Section B and how much time is allowed?

Section B has five essay questions; you select and answer one question, with 40 minutes allowed.

What does the passage in “Physicians and Patients” focus on?

It contrasts traditional medical ethics with criticisms of paternalism and discusses patient autonomy, informed consent, and the scope of patients’ rights.

Sep 18, 2026

Uploaded by wps_ap_test_251126_0180