Passage Summary: Even though people usually have a right to say no to experiments, we need to do some experiments without asking first so we can figure out how to save people in emergencies.

Conclusion: Some restricted nonconsensual medical research ought to be permitted.

Reasoning: Gaining knowledge about the best treatments for emergency conditions is impossible without occasionally bypassing the consent process during those emergencies.

Analysis: The argument sets up a conflict between an individual right (consent) and a collective goal (medical knowledge). To conclude that we 'should' allow the research, the author must assume that the goal of gaining this specific knowledge is important enough to override the patient's right to consent. The 'missing link' is a value judgment. Look for an answer that bridges this gap by suggesting that the benefit of the knowledge justifies the violation of the right in these specific circumstances.