LSAT 120 - Section 3 - Question 20

April 21, 2012

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.

A
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.
B
stating the definition of a key term of the argument
Descriptively accurate. Author states the definition of “unnatural.”
C
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.
D
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).
E
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.

31 comments

LSAT 120 - Section 3 - Question 21

April 21, 2012

7 comments

LSAT 120 - Section 3 - Question 22

April 21, 2012

7 comments

LSAT 120 - Section 3 - Question 23

April 21, 2012

Television network executive: Some scientists have expressed concern about the numerous highly popular television programs that emphasize paranormal incidents, warning that these programs will encourage superstition and thereby impede the public’s scientific understanding. But these predictions are baseless. Throughout recorded history, dramatists have relied on ghosts and spirits to enliven their stories, and yet the scientific understanding of the populace has steadily advanced.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position

The author concludes that programs that emphasize paranormal incidents will not impede the public’s scientific understanding. This is based on the fact that throughout history, story-tellers have told stories involving paranormal elements, but the public’s scientific understanding has steadily advanced during this time.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The author overlooks the possibility that paranormal stories have impeded (meaning, obstructed or hindered) the public’s understanding of science, even if they haven’t completely stopped advancement of that understanding. Something can still advance while being impeded.

A
It fails to consider that one phenomenon can steadily advance even when it is being impeded by another phenomenon.

The author fails to consider that the public’s understanding of science can steadily advance even when it is being impeded by paranormal stories. This is why the author’s premise does not establish that TV shows about paranormal incidents won’t impede understanding.

B
It takes for granted that if a correlation has been observed between two phenomena, they must be causally connected.

The author does not assume that correlation proves cause. The author’s conclusion does not assert cause or rely on an assumption of cause. In fact, the author asserts that one thing (paranormal stories) does not cause another thing (impeding of understanding).

C
It fails to consider that the occurrence of one phenomenon can indirectly affect the pervasiveness of another even if the former does not impede the latter.

The conclusion is that one thing does not impede another thing. Pointing out a failure to consider what could be true “even if [one thing] does not impede [another thing]” does not show why the argument is weak. Any weakness must relate to why one thing can impede another thing.

D
It fails to consider that just because one phenomenon is known to affect another, the latter does not also affect the former.

The author does not overlook the possibility that a causal relationship is also reversed. The author does not, for example, assert that paranormal stories can’t affect public understanding because public understanding has affected paranormal stories.

E
It takes for granted that the contention that one phenomenon causes another must be baseless if the latter phenomenon has persisted despite steady increases in the pervasiveness of the former.

The contention is that paranormal TV shows impede scientific understanding. The author believes this is baseless. But the author does not cite to the fact that the impeding of scientific understanding has persisted despite increases in the pervasiveness of paranormal stories.


37 comments

LSAT 120 - Section 3 - Question 24

April 21, 2012

Police commissioner: Last year our city experienced a 15 percent decrease in the rate of violent crime. At the beginning of that year a new mandatory sentencing law was enacted, which requires that all violent criminals serve time in prison. Since no other major policy changes were made last year, the drop in the crime rate must have been due to the new mandatory sentencing law.

Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author concludes that last year’s 15 percent decrease in the rate of violent crime was caused by the new mandatory sentencing law. This is because the law was passed at the beginning of last year, and no other major policy changes were made last year.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that there was no alternate cause of the decreased crime rate. (Even though there were no other major policy changes last year, the crime rate could have decreased for some other reason that wasn’t a policy change, or from a policy change enacted before last year.)

A
Studies of many other cities have shown a correlation between improving economic conditions and decreased crime rates.
We have no idea whether the author’s city had improved economic conditions. So, (A) doesn’t act as an alternate explanation for the decreased violent crime rate.
B
Prior to the enactment of the mandatory sentencing law, judges in the city had for many years already imposed unusually harsh penalties for some crimes.
The mandatory sentencing law required prison time for all violent criminals. We have no idea whether the “unusually harsh penalties for some crimes” involved prison time for violent crimes.
C
Last year, the city’s overall crime rate decreased by only 5 percent.
We know the violent crime rate decreased by 15 percent, which is higher than 5 percent. (C) helps support the theory that the decreased crime rate can’t be explained by a general decrease in crime.
D
At the beginning of last year, the police department’s definition of “violent crime” was broadened to include 2 crimes not previously classified as “violent.”
This strengthens the argument, because broadening the definition of “violent crime” would lead us to expect an increase in violent crime. This helps eliminate the explanation that the decreased violent crime rate was caused by a narrowing of the definition of violent crime.
E
The city enacted a policy 2 years ago requiring that 100 new police officers be hired in each of the 3 subsequent years.
This provides a potential alternate explanation for the decreased violent crime. (E) describes a policy change that was made prior to last year, but continued to have effects into last year. It’s reasonable to think increased numbers of police officers could reduce violent crime.

47 comments

LSAT 120 - Section 3 - Question 25

April 21, 2012

15 comments

LSAT 120 - Section 3 - Question 26

April 21, 2012

Students in a college ethics class were asked to judge whether two magazines had been morally delinquent in publishing a particular classified advertisement that was highly offensive in its demeaning portrayal of some people. They were told only that the first magazine had undertaken to screen all classified advertisements and reject for publication those it found offensive, whereas the second magazine’s policy was to publish any advertisement received from its subscribers. Most students judged the first magazine, but not the second, to have been morally delinquent in publishing the advertisement.

Summarize Argument
Most students conclude that the first magazine, but not the second, was morally delinquent for publishing the advertisement. No evidence is provided for this judgement.

Notable Assumptions
Most students assume that a magazine is morally delinquent if it has reviewed and published an offensive advertisement, but not morally delinquent if it simply publishes every submitted advertisement. Most students therefore believe that a policy of publishing every advertisement isn’t in itself morally delinquent.

A
It is wrong to publish messages that could cause direct or indirect harm to innocent people.
Most students only judge the first magazine to have done something wrong. This tells us both did something wrong.
B
Anyone regularly transmitting messages to the public has a moral responsibility to monitor the content of those messages.
This applies to both magazines. Yet most students think only the first magazine did something wrong.
C
If two similar agents commit two similar actions, those agents should be held to the same standard of accountability.
Both magazines committed the same action, so they should be judged the same. However, most students think only the first magazine did something wrong.
D
Failure to uphold a moral standard is not necessarily a moral failing except for those who have specifically committed themselves to upholding that standard.
Since the first magazine tried and failed to uphold a moral standard, that magazine committed a moral failing. The other magazine didn’t bother with moral standards, hence why most students don’t think that magazine did anything wrong.
E
A magazine should not be considered at fault for publishing a classified advertisement if that advertisement would not be offensive to any of the magazine’s subscribers.
The advertisement was offensive.

3 comments

LSAT 47 - Section 3 - Question 01

April 21, 2012

3 comments

LSAT 47 - Section 3 - Question 02

April 21, 2012

6 comments

LSAT 47 - Section 3 - Question 03

April 21, 2012

4 comments

«‹244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260261262›»