#19 - Specific Reference, Must Be True

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

The correct answer choice is (A).

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (B):

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D):

Answer choice (E):

This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[sophia_lsat]

I initially thought that A was correct, but eventually eliminated it because it said that the choice would be arbitrary only, but in the passage (second paragraph) it says: "must necessarily be arbitrary or irrational".

I've made a lot of mistakes in the past where I assume 2 words/phrases are synonymous when they're not actually, and I thought this was a similar trick so I eliminated A and went with D, since it was referenced in the sentence right before. Is there a way to distinguish between when something is considered by the LSAT to be synonymous versus when it is not?

Thank you!

[cd1010]

Hi Sophia_lsat, I'm not an instructor but I will attempt to answer your question, (And also see if an instructor can check my reasoning!)

I don't think the issue with A is about them dropping a synonymous word. If that were the reason that A was wrong, then I feel like you can argue the same for D. I read "arbitary" or "irrational" not as synonymous words but more so as being in the same bucket of adjectives for CLS scholars.

I think the important part here is the first part of the paragraph: "In addition, says Meyerson, even when the two solutions are equally compelling, it does not follow that the choice between them must be irrational. On the contrary, a solution that is not rationally required need not be unreasonable. ". There's two levels here. First is CLS scholars viewpoints, and secondly, what Meyerson thinks. We only read about CLS scholars via Meyerson's critique of them, which I think is why it's a little confusing. I think what the passage is saying is that Meyerson thinks that CLS scholars are kind of going to an extreme, i.e. Meyerson says that CLS scholars say, here's X and Y which are in conflict, so any choice between them has to be irrational, arbitrary, unreasonable.

Meyerson thinks this is too extreme. Basically, she doesn't think the situation is as dire as how CLS scholars perceive it. This is what this section means: "The acknowledgment that conflicting values can exist, then, does not have the far-reaching implications imputed by CLS; even if some answer to a problem is not the only answer, opting for it can still be reasonable.". Basically Meyerson is saying, "ok let's say we're in a situation where where X and Y in conflict, we can still make a choice, and making that choice doesn't necessarily have to be characterized as unreasonable, irrational, arbitary.

So I think this is what "far-reaching implications" refers to. According to Meyerson, CLS scholars, when faced with two choices in conflict, are sort of putting their hands up and saying any choice is just necessarily random (i.e. unreasonable, difficult to justify). Whereas Meyerson would say to CLR, hey guys, calm down, we can still make a reasonable choice.

This is why D is correct. It's referring to how CLR would view things: that any kind of answer is impossible. I think D is better is that I think it more squarely captures the underlying argument of CLR? Also, the next sentence " even if some answer to a problem is not the only answer, opting for it can still be reasonable", helps clarify these "Far-reaching implications". The next sentence is saying "yes a reasonable answer is possible". If you link that back to the previous phrase, then "far-reaching implications" more closely refers to the idea in D.

Not sure if that's right, but hopefully someone else can respond!

[sophia_lsat]

Thank you so much for answering cd1010! This was helpful.