#6 - The notion that one might be justified in behaving

[eober]

Hi,

I am very confused about the argument in the stimulus. Is there a way to diagram it? I attempted to diagram as conditional reasoning but couldn't. Would you be able to explain how this question should have been approached?

Thank you!

[Lucas Moreau]

Hello, eober,

This one isn't really conditional reasoning. The trouble in the argument is that the premise advanced that claims to prove the conclusion doesn't actually address the problem.

The problem is that the person who assesses the diamond is the same person who sells the diamond, which obviously gives that person an incentive to lie about the value of the diamond. But Gem World's claim that their diamonds are certified in writing doesn't actually remove this problem. It could very well be that the person certifying the diamonds in writing is the same person who sells the diamond, which would negate the advertisement's conclusion completely.

Hope that helps,
Lucas Moreau

[eober]

I am not sure if this is the same question I have.

Question 6, section 2, June 2001 LSAT:

"The notion that one might be justified in behaving irrationally in the service of a sufficiently worthy end is incoherent. For it such an action is justified, then one would be behaving rationally, not irrationally"
Which one of the following is most similar in its reasosning to the argument above?

[Steve Stein]

Hi,

That's a good question; the argument basically breaks down as follows:

Premise: For an action to be justified, you must behave rationally:
Justified action rational behavior

Conclusion: Thus, irrational actions cannot be considered justified:
rational behavior justified action

The author's conclusion is the contrapositive of the premise.
Similarly, correct answer choice (B) breaks down as follows:

Premise: If water is spilled accidentally, it cannot be intentional:
spilled accidentally intentional spill

Conclusion: If you intend to spill a glass of water, it cannot be accidental:
intentional spill accidental spill

Again, note that the conclusion is the contrapositive of the premise.

I hope that's helpful! Please let me know whether this is clear--thanks!

~Steve

[eober]

Makes perfect sense! Thank you so much!

[Steve Stein]

Hi,

Thanks! I appreciate your response--glad I could help!

~Steve

[anureet]

I am very confused about option B. I am confused because I don't understand that the statement " one cannot intend to spill a glass of water accidentally", is this a conditional statement. Is cannot a conditional indicator. If it is, how would I draw this statement?

[Adam Tyson]

You could treat that as a conditional statement, anureet, and you would do it by treating "cannot" as negating the necessary condition. Putting that statement into an if/then structure, it's the same as saying "if intentional, then not accidental" or "if accidental , then not intentional." Words of absolute negation set up relationships that mean "if this, then not that." You would get the same result from statements that use words like no, none, and never, such as "an accident can never occur intentionally" and "no accident is ever intentional."

I didn't take a conditional approach to this one, although doing so makes sense, as Steve explained earlier in this thread. My alternate approach was to look at it in the abstract and see that the author's argument is based on pointing out an inherent contradiction in terms: this thing cannot be that thing because this thing is the opposite of that thing.

[Julie777]

Hello,

While I was looking at this question, option (C) seems to be a tempting one.

What I understood is,

< Stimulus >

Premise : Justified -> Rational
Conclusion : (Justified & Irrational) = incoherent

Because there cannot be any situation where sufficient part is satisfied but not necessary part.


< option C >

Premise : See one is unhappy -> see one is not living good life
Conclusion : (good life & unhappy) = incoherent

I thought at first option C is right because it also shows similar reasoning, but the phrase 'one's own neighbors see that' seems quite inappropriate. Because if it's the case, the conclusion should also contain the same phrase.

Am I right in the process?

Thanks in advance for your help!
Julie.

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Exactly Julie! The idea behind answer choice (C) is that people are behaving disingenuously. They aren't showing that living the good life and being unhappy are incompatible. Answer choice (C) is about what things look like from the outside, and not the definitions/requirements inherent in a term. Answer choice (B) matches the stimulus, in that it says the term "accidentally" requires that an action be unintentional, and thus you cannot intend to do something accidentally. There is no similar term definition relationship in answer choice (C).

Great work!