Which one of the following most accurately states the main conclusion of the moralist’s argument?
This is a Main Conclusion question.
Arguments from “Moralists” are my second favorite on the LSAT. (My favorite are those from “Trampoline Enthusiasts.”)
Humans have a natural disposition to altruism–that is, to behavior that serves the needs of others regardless of one’s own needs…
The moralist starts with a claim about humans having a “natural disposition to altruism.” What does that mean? Luckily she defines it: behavior that serves the needs of others regardless of one’s own needs.
I should be a bit more precise – she defined “altruism.” But we still need to think a little bit about what it means to have a natural disposition toward altruism. That seems to mean that we naturally do things that are helpful to others, even if it doesn’t help ourselves. We don’t need to be told to do it or pressured into doing it.
…but that very disposition prevents some acts of altruism from counting as moral.
The word “but” signals a shift in direction – usually a shift from context to the argument. It’s not always introducing a conclusion. But it often signals that the author’s opinion is about to come soon.
In this case, the part immediately after “but” sounds like the moralist’s opinion about the natural disposition toward altruism. The moralist is saying that the fact we naturally are altruistic prevents some altruistic acts from being moral. That’s interesting – how could an altruistic act not be moral? Isn’t helping people for free a good, moral thing?
The moralist continues:
Reason plays an essential role in any moral behavior.
Not sure I’m following this yet. Keep going:
Only behavior that is intended to be in accordance with a formal set of rules, or moral code, can be considered moral behavior.
Now we can start to make sense of things. This last sentence is a principle (or rule) about what’s required in order to be considered moral behavior. (The word “only” introduces what’s necessary in this conditional statement.)
That principle is an elaboration of the previous line about reason and its essential role in moral behavior. The moralist is laying out what aspect of “reason” is required – you need to be intending to follow a formal set of rules in order for what you do to be moral.
If humans are naturally inclined to do altruistic things, that suggests some altruistic things might not involve intention to follow a formal set of rules. I naturally want to help children trapped in burning cars by the side of the road. If I pull them out of the wreckage, I’m not doing that because I’m trying to follow some law that requires me to save those children. According to the moralist’s principle in the last sentence, that means my saving of those children isn’t moral.
This is how we can tell that the conclusion is “that very disposition prevents some acts of altruism from counting as moral.” That’s the product of applying the rule in the last sentence. Put another way, we know that’s the conclusion, because if you ask the moralist, “Why should I believe that?” – she’d point to the last sentence.
Let’s look for something along the lines of “The natural disposition to altruism prevents some acts of altruism from counting as moral.”
Answer Choice (A) All moral codes prohibit selfishness.
Where is this coming from? We don’t know anything about “all” moral codes from this stimulus. Something that is not supported by the stimulus cannot be the conclusion.
Answer Choice (B) All moral behavior is motivated by altruism
This doesn’t sound like the conclusion, which is a claim about some altruistic acts not being moral. A statement about “all moral behavior” is much too broad for what we’re aiming.
If we want to delve a bit more deeply (which is not necessary in a timed situation), this answer isn’t supported. Although the principle in the last sentence would support the idea that all moral behavior must be intended to follow a formal set of rules, that’s not saying that all moral behavior is motivated by altruism. This answer would have been better (but still wrong) if it had said “All moral behavior is motivated by intention to follow a formal set of rules.”
Answer Choice (C) Behavior must serve the needs of others in order to be moral behavior.
This doesn’t follow the author’s principle in the last sentence, so there’s no way it can be the conclusion. If you picked this, you might be bringing in your own outside opinion about what’s moral, and not focusing on what the moralist said.
Correct Answer Choice (D) Not all altruistic acts are moral behavior.
This is a pretty close restatement of the conclusion. I would have preferred something that included the part about how the natural disposition prevents those acts from being moral. But this is the only answer choice that includes the idea that some altruistic acts are not moral.
(By the way, the statement “Not all X are Y” means “Some X are not Y.” Remember the lesson on negating quantifiers? This is why I’m interpreting (D) as “Some altruistic acts are not moral behavior.”)
Answer Choice (E) Altruism develops through the use of reason.
Where does this come from? If anything, it seems to go against the stimulus. We have a natural disposition toward altruism – that suggests we’re not necessarily reasoning our way to altruism.
Stephen’s response to Zachary, if true, most strongly supports which one of the following?
This is a Most Strongly Supported question, since we’re looking for an answer that is strongly supported by Stephen’s response. MSS questions with two speakers are rare, but do pop up from time to time. We have to read Zachary’s statement first before we get to Stephen’s, in order to understand Stephen’s point.
Zachary: The term “fresco” refers to paint that has been applied to wet plaster. Once dried, a fresco indelibly preserves the paint that a painter has applied in this way.
This seems to be context telling us about fresco. It’s some kind of paint that lasts indelibly (forever).
Unfortunately, additions known to have been made by later painters have obscured the original fresco work done by Michelangelo in the Sistine Chapel.
We know that some painters have painted over parts of Michelangelo’s fresco painting in the Sistine Chapel. Those rapscallions! So that’s why there’s a long mushroom drawn on God’s face…
Therefore, in order to restore Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel paintings to the appearance that Michelangelo intended them to have, everything except the original fresco work must be stripped away.
This is Zach’s conclusion – if we want to get back to Michelangelo’s intended appearance for the Sistine Chapel paintings, we have to strip away everything except the original fresco work.
Does that conclusion follow from the fact that other painters have painted over parts of Michelangelo’s original fresco work?
(By the way, we should be skeptical and critical of Zach’s argument, even though this is a MSS question, because we’re asked what is most strongly supported based on Stephen’s response to Zach. Stephen is likely to criticize Zach’s argument. If we were asked instead what is most strongly supported based on Zach’s statement, then we would just accept everything Zach said as true.)
Zach’s argument doesn’t seem obviously flawed. There’s likely a problem with it, but I’ll proceed as if we can’t spot Zach’s assumptions just yet. Let’s see if Stephen’s response helps us see things more clearly.
Stephen: But it was extremely common for painters of Michelangelo’s era to add painted details to their own fresco work after the frescos had dried.
A-ha! What if Michelangelo made his own additions after the original fresco work dried? It was common for painters to do so during this time, so there’s a strong chance Michelangelo did so with the Sistine Chapel painting. And if that’s the case, then stripping away everything but the original fresco might actually go against Michelangelo’s intention. Stephen is pointing out that Zachary’s argument assumed Michelangelo didn’t intend any additions made after the original fresco work.
What’s strongly supported by Stephen’s response? I’m anticipating an answer that goes against Zach’s conclusion. Stephen’s response suggests Zach’s conclusion – that going back to the original fresco work is required to get back to Michelangelo’s intention – might be wrong.
Answer Choice (A) It is impossible to distinguish the later painted additions made to Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel paintings from the original fresco work.
This answer might be tempting if you’re thinking that our goal on this question is to weaken Zach’s argument or to strengthen Stephen’s response. After all, if it were impossible to tell what’s an addition and what’s an original, then we wouldn’t be able to strip everything but the original away.
There’s one fundamental problem with this answer, however: this isn’t a Weaken or a Strengthen question. We’re not looking to evaluate the effect of the answer, if it were true. We’re looking for an answer that is strongly supported by Stephen’s response, if his response is true.
Under that standard, (A) has no support. We have no idea whether it’s “impossible” to distinguish the additions from the original. Maybe some of the additions are clearly newer than the original? Stephen’s response merely suggests that Michelangelo made some additions to his original work. But that doesn’t mean we don’t know what’s new and what’s original.
If we take Zach’s claims to be true, then (A) is anti-supported. His claims imply that it is possible to distinguish the original from the later add-ons.
Correct Answer Choice (B) Stripping away everything except Michelangelo’s original fresco work from the Sistine Chapel paintings would be unlikely to restore them to the appearance Michelangelo intended them to have.
This is most strongly supported by Stephen’s response, because if it was “extremely common” for painters in Michelangelo’s time to paint over their original, then there’s a strong chance Michelangelo intended some additions that covered the original. In that case, stripping everything away except the original wouldn’t be what Michelangelo intended.
I would like this answer more if it used a word or phrase weaker than “unlikely,” such as “might not” or “would not necessarily.” But “unlikely” is supportable here given that painting over the original was “extremely common” in Michelangelo’s time period. If we did not know that this practice was very common, then I’d be careful about picking this answer choice, since “unlikely” would seem too strong.
Answer Choice (C) The painted details that painters of Michelangelo’s era added to their own fresco work were not an integral part of the completed paintings’ overall design.
Stephen’s response doesn’t suggest anything about whether the additions that the original painters made to the original work fit into the works’ overall design. Maybe the additions fit well, because the original painters realized that the original work was missing something. Maybe the overall design of the Sistine Chapel required Michelangelo’s later additions. We just don’t know from Stephen’s response.
Answer Choice (D) None of the painters of Michelangelo’s era who made additions to the Sistine Chapel paintings was an important artist in his or her own right.
We don’t know anything about the painters’ importance from Stephen’s response. Don’t assume that people who made additions to a famous painter’s work can’t themselves be famous.
Answer Choice (E) Michelangelo was rarely satisfied with the appearance of his finished works.
Stephen’s response doesn’t suggest anything about how frequently Michelangelo was satisfied with his finished works. First, even if Michelangelo added things to his originals, that doesn’t mean he was unsatisfied with the original – maybe he liked the originals, but just wanted to make them even better? Second, the “finished work” might include both the original and the additions – maybe he was satisfied with the work after making the additions?
Which one of the following is the main conclusion of the argument?
This is a Main Conclusion question.
This problem is a great example of how important it is to recognize when an author’s conclusion is a response to other people’s position. The correct answer can sometimes be framed in terms of that response, rather than in terms that focus only on the author’s wording.
Here, we get a cookie cutter structure – the stimulus starts off with other people’s position.
Antarctica has generally been thought to have been covered by ice for at least the past 14 million years.
The phrase “has generally been thought” is what tells us that the author is describing what other people have generally thought.
Then, we learn about a phenomenon:
Recently, however, three-million-year-old fossils of a kind previously found only in ocean-floor sediments were discovered under the ice sheet covering central Antarctica.
What’s interesting about these fossils is that they are of a kind that has previously been found “only in ocean-floor sediments.” (If you thought the word “however” meant this statement was the conclusion, remember that “however” simply signals a shift in direction in the stimulus. While it often introduces a conclusion, it doesn’t always do so. The shift in direction here is the phenomenon that seems like it goes against the general belief described in the first sentence.)
Make sure to connect what we were just told with the general belief in the first sentence. Generally, people think that Antarctica has been covered by ice for the past 14 million years. But fossils from only 3 million years ago are somehow below the Antarctic ice sheet. And this kind of fossil has been found only in the ocean floor. How did they get there if ice covered Antarctica for 14 million years? Was there an ocean covering Antarctica at some point?
The next line of the stimulus attempts to reconcile this discrepancy by hypothesizing that:
About three million years ago, therefore, the Antarctic ice sheet must temporarily have melted.
This seems to be a conclusion for several reasons. First, it seems to be the author’s hypothesis for how the fossils got to be under the ice sheet – the ice sheet must have been melted at that time. Second, it uses the conclusion indicator, “therefore.” That means we know it’s a conclusion, but we need to determine whether it’s the main conclusion or just a subsidiary conclusion / major premise.
The next sentence confirms that the line we just read is the main conclusion:
After all, either severe climatic warming or volcanic activity in Antarctica’s mountains could have melted the ice sheet, thus raising sea levels and submerging the continent.
The first phrase, “after all,” is a support indicator that tells us the rest of the sentence is support for the previous statement (which was the author’s hypothesis about the Antarctic ice sheet having melted temporarily). The last sentence has the word “thus,” which might make you think the last sentence has a premise-conclusion structure of its own. Arguably that’s true, in which case, the last part following “thus” would be a subsidiary conclusion, since it’s offering a causal mechanism helping to explain why the author’s hypothesis about the ice sheet having melted makes sense.
But the word “thus” in the last sentence might just be introducing the second part of a causal claim, rather than a conclusion. (Language is sometimes ambiguous! Embrace it.) Consider these two statements:
“You can adjust the height of the chair, thus giving you some control over your viewing angle.”
“You can adjust the height of the chair, which gives you some control over your viewing angle.”
Are these arguments? Is the author trying to persuade you that you’ll have control over your viewing angle? Or is the author simply stating a single causal claim?: Adjusting the height of the chair will give you control over your viewing angle. (I think they’re not arguments.)
This discussion is not critical for solving this problem, since no matter what you think of the structure of the last sentence, the fact that it is introduced by “after all” will confirm that it’s all support for the statement immediately before “after all.”
Let’s look for something along the lines of “The Antarctic ice sheet temporarily melted about three million years ago.”
Answer Choice (A) Antarctica is no longer generally thought to have been covered by ice for the past 14 million years.
This can be a tempting trap, if you don’t distinguish between (1) the truth of a claim, and (2) people believing the claim is true. We know that the author’s conclusion is that the ice sheet must have melted 3 million years ago. So the author does not believe that ice covered Antarctica for 14 million years. But the author is silent on whether the belief that ice covered Antarctica for 14 million years remains the consensus belief. Most people may still believe that. And if they do, the author would point to them and say that they are wrong.
Answer Choice (B) It is not the case that ancient fossils of the kind recently found in Antarctica are found only in ocean-floor sediments.
The author’s conclusion was about ice melting…not whether the fossils are found somewhere besides ocean-floor sediments. That’s enough to eliminate this answer, and in a timed situation, you wouldn’t want to think any more deeply about it. (B) is trying to bait us into wasting time on thinking whether it’s supported by the stimulus. It seems to be true, if we assume that the recently discovered fossils found under the ice sheet are not in ocean-floor sediments. I don’t know if that’s a reasonable assumption or not. Regardless, it’s not the point of the author’s argument, which is about Antarctica and melted ice sheets.
Correct Answer Choice (C) The ice sheet covering Antarctica has not been continuously present throughout the past 14 million years.
This initially doesn’t seem appealing, since it speaks of the ice sheet not being “continuously” present, and it uses the figure 14 million years, when we were expecting an answer referring to 3 million years. However, when we consider the author’s conclusion and how it relates to the general belief in the first sentence, this answer makes sense as a paraphrase of the author’s point.
The general belief was that Antarctica was covered by ice for the past 14 million years. The author’s discussion of the fossils and how they indicate that the ice sheet must have melted 3 million years ago is designed to counter that general belief. “No, Antarctica wasn’t covered by ice for 14 million years – there was melting at some point.”
If you took away the first sentence – in other words, ignored the fact that the author’s argument was a response to the general belief – then (C)'s reference to 14 million years ago and the “continuous” presence of ice would not make much sense. But we do have to take into account the context; what the author is responding to matters on the LSAT. (C) may not be the ideal answer, but it is the one that best captures what we were looking for.
Answer Choice (D) What caused Antarctica to be submerged under the sea was the melting of the ice sheet that had previously covered the continent.
This may be tempting, since it’s supported by the stimulus. This is something the author believes. However, you should ask whether the author’s point was to tell us how Antarctica came to be under the sea, or whether it was to tell us that Antarctica was under the sea at some point. Notice that the statement about the how (the cause of the ice sheet melting) was the last sentence, which starts with the phrase “After all.” This phrase tells us that the last line is offered to support the previous statement. That’s why (D) is not correct.
Answer Choice (E) The ice sheet covering Antarctica was melted either as a result of volcanic activity in Antarctica’s mountains or as a result of severe climatic warming.
This is also a very tempting answer, since it seems part of the author’s reasoning. I’ll note two issues. The first is the same issue raised above with the correct answer (C) – the fact that the author’s argument is a response to the general belief in the first sentence matters. (E) doesn’t capture the timeframe of the melting, which is an important part of the author’s response. The author isn’t just trying to say that the ice sheet melted; it’s that the ice sheet melted within the time period that most people think it didn’t melt.
The second issue is that (E) arguably is not strongly supported by the stimulus. The author did mention severe climatic warming or volcanic activity as two things that could have caused the ice sheet to melt. But that doesn’t mean the author thinks those were in fact the only two causes. The author never said that they were providing the exclusive methods for how the ice sheet could have melted.