Passage Summary: Jeff argues that if we protect some animals because we like them, we should actually protect all mammals because they all share the capacity to suffer.

Conclusion: Regulations prohibiting experiments on certain animals should be expanded to include all mammals.

Reasoning: Current regulations protect animals we empathize with, but since all mammals feel pain, they should all receive the same protection.

Analysis: This Principle question asks us to find a rule that justifies Jeff's leap from biological facts to legal policy. Jeff's argument relies on the idea that the capacity to feel pain is a sufficient reason to grant an animal protection from experimentation. The 'gap' is between the current empathy-based standard and Jeff's proposed pain-based standard. Look for a principle that states if an animal possesses the relevant trait (feeling pain), it should be included under the protective regulations regardless of human empathy.