A
Approximately half the population carries a gene that lowers cholesterol levels.
B
Most of those at risk of heart disease may be able to reduce their risk by adopting a low-cholesterol diet.
C
The bodies of those who have the Apo-A-IV-2 gene excrete cholesterol when blood cholesterol reaches a certain level.
D
The presence of the Apo-A-IV-1 gene seems to indicate that a person has a lower risk of heart disease.
E
The presence of the Apo-A-IV-2 gene may inhibit the elevation of blood cholesterol.
For clarity, sentence two expresses the main point of the passage. In the video, I drew the "premise line" too high up making it seem like sentence two is a premise when it is not.
Although 90 percent of the population believes itself to be well informed about health care, only 20 percent knows enough about DNA to understand a news story about DNA. So apparently at least 80 percent of the population does not know enough about medical concepts to make well-informed personal medical choices or to make good public policy decisions about health care.
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that at least 80% of people don’t know enough about medical concepts to make well-informed personal medical decisions or good public policy decisions about health care. He supports this by noting that 20% of people understand enough about DNA to understand a news story about DNA, meaning 80% of people don't.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that because 80% of people don't understand DNA well enough to follow a news story about it, they can't make well-informed personal medical decisions or public health decisions. However, he fails to provide evidence that explains how understanding DNA is necessary for making those decisions.
A
those people who can understand news stories about DNA are able to make well-informed personal medical choices
The author assumes that people who cannot understand news stories about DNA are unable to make well-informed personal medical decisions (or that people who can make these decisions must be able to understand news stories about DNA). (A) has this backward.
B
more than 20 percent of the population needs to be well informed about health care for good public policy decisions about health care to be made
The author concludes that 80% of people can’t make good public policy decisions because they can’t understand a news story about DNA, but he never suggests that over 20% of people need to be well informed about health care for good public policy decisions to be made.
C
one’s being able to make well-informed personal medical choices ensures that one makes good public policy decisions about health care
The author never suggests a causal connection between making well-informed personal medical choices and making good public policy decisions about health care. Instead, he assumes that one has to understand DNA in order to make these personal and public health decisions.
D
an understanding of DNA is essential to making well-informed personal medical choices or to making good public policy decisions about health care
This describes the author’s unsupported assumption. He claims that 80% of people can’t make good personal medical decisions or public policy decisions because they can’t understand DNA, but he fails to demonstrate that understanding DNA is necessary for making those decisions.
E
since 90 percent of the population believes itself to be well informed about health care, at least 70 percent of the population is mistaken in that belief
Just because 80% of people don’t understand DNA doesn’t mean they’re not well informed about health care. The author doesn’t argue that not understanding DNA means someone isn’t well informed about health care, but rather that they can't make informed personal medical decisions.
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.
P1. Moral behavior → intentionally moral;
P2. Not all altruism is intentionally moral;
Therefore, not all altruism is moral behavior.