LSAT 120 – Section 3 – Question 20

LSAT 120 - Section 3 - Question 20

October 2005

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Target time: 1:27

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question QuickView	Type	Tags	Answer Choices	Curve	Question Difficulty	Psg/Game/S Difficulty	Explanation
PT120 S3 Q20	+LR	Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method Conditional Reasoning +CondR	A 5% 157 B 51% 166 C 1% 153 D 41% 160 E 2% 156	153 163 173	+Hardest	146.629 +SubsectionMedium

Philosopher: It is absurd to argue that people are morally obligated to act in a certain way simply because not acting in that way would be unnatural. An unnatural action is either a violation of the laws of nature or a statistical anomaly. There is no possibility of acting as one cannot, nor does the mere fact that something is not usually done provide any good reason not to do it.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position

OPA: Some argue that certain actions are morally obligatory because not acting in that way would be unnatural.
Conclusion: But that’s absurd, i.e., the argument’s logic is absurd.
Premise: An “unnatural action” is either a violation of the laws of nature or a statistical anomaly. Violating the laws of nature is impossible. A statistical anomaly is simply something uncommon, and that is not a good reason to avoid doing it.

Describe Method of Reasoning

Author shows that a key concept (”unnatural”) in OP’s premise can only mean two things, neither of which supports OP’s conclusion. Hence, OP’s conclusion is unsupported.

undermining a concept by showing that its acceptance would violate a law of nature

Descriptively inaccurate. The only concept the author can arguably be said to be undermining is the concept of “unnatural.” Yet the author does not show that accepting the concept of “unnatural” would violate a law of nature. Instead, the author shows that “unnatural” can only have two meanings, neither of which supports the OP’s conclusion.

stating the definition of a key term of the argument

Descriptively accurate. Author states the definition of “unnatural.”

using statistical findings to dispute a claim

Descriptively inaccurate. There is a difference between defining a concept as a “statistical anomaly” (which the author does) versus using a statistical finding (which the author does not do). A statistical finding would be, e.g., car accidents decreased 10% last year.

undermining a claim by showing that the claim is self-contradictory

Descriptively inaccurate. There is a difference between stating that some “unnatural” actions are impossible to perform because they violate the laws of nature (which the author does) versus showing that the concept of “unnatural” is self-contradictory (which the author does not do).

using empirical evidence to support one definition of a key term of the argument over another

Descriptively inaccurate. Author does not use empirical evidence—evidence gathered by observation or experimentation—to support anything. Example of empirical evidence could be a statistical finding that, say, car accidents decreased 10% last year.

LSAT 120 – Section 3 – Question 20

LSAT 120 - Section 3 - Question 20

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 120 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Leave a Reply Cancel