#19 - Essayist: One of the drawbacks of extreme personal and

[Nina]

I was struggled between answer D and E, and finally chose the wrong one.

Why is E incorrect? The second sentence of the stimulus stated "to expect... is frequently unrealistic". And the third sentence was talking about "totalitarian". I just couldn't decide which one, "unrealistic" or "totalitarian", is a more crucial element in this argument.

Thanks a lot!

[Steve Stein]

Hi Nina,

The problem with freedom, according to this author, is that people often don't thrive when given too much of it ("to expect otherwise would be unrealistic," but this is just another way to state the real issue: that people often don't thrive when given too much freedom).

So the argument breaks down as follows:

People often don't thrive with too much freedom
Once they see this, they may prefer regimes with no freedom.

Therefore one shouldn't support regimes that provide too much freedom.


Since the stimulus is followed by a Strengthen-PR question, the correct answer choice will link the conclusion above with one of the premises. This leads us to answer choice D, which provides that if a regime might lead one to prefer a no-freedom regime, then one should not support that regime.

I hope that's helpful! Let me know whether that clears it up--thanks!

~Steve

[Nina]

Thank you very much, Steve! Very helpful

[Morgan O'Donnell]

In the last problem of the lesson 1 about extreme freedom (from the Advanced Logical Reasoning course), do we have a Causality chain here?

Extreme freedom----^bad choces------^resorting to totalitarian regime

If it is a Causality chain is my diagram correct and should I diagram it or just try to rely on my short memory and not diagram?

2. Also, does OFTEN equal to MOST or SOME? And if it can be translated into one of the two above, do we have Formal Logic here in the first sentence?

Thank you!

[Steve Stein]

Hi,

That’s a good question. Causal reasoning generally appears where there is some question as to whether one thing causes another. In this case, the author doesn’t really say “this causes that,” but makes the point that free choices are often made for the worst, and expecting people to thrive with freedom is “frequently” unrealistic. In other words, sometimes people make bad choices, and sometimes it’s unrealistic to expect people to thrive with too much freedom.

Let’s consider the basic argument:

Premise: Once people see the destructive consequences of extreme freedom, they may prefer to establish no-freedom regimes.

Conclusion: Therefore, you shouldn’t support political systems that allow extreme freedom.

The question that follows requires you to find the answer choice that strengthens this author’s argument.

As you alluded to, the author uses some notable words: “often” and “frequently,” are basically equivalent to “sometimes,” which is not very specific.

As such, only answer choice (D) lends strength to the basic argument. If, as (D) provides, one should not support any system whose destructive consequences “could” (another very soft claim) lead to a preference for totalitarian regimes.

I hope that’s helpful! Please let me know whether this is clear—thanks!

~Steve

[prep88]

In other words, in order to have causality the language must be definitive (not frquently or sometimes but always; not possibly or probably but surely)?
The rest is clear! Thank you!

[Steve Stein]

Hi,

Thanks for your response. When causality is tested on the LSAT, the basis tends to be a claim about one thing or factor causing another, or one thing or factor being the result of another. The question that you asked about doesn't really deal with whether something caused something else. Questions with causal reasoning with often feature action words such as caused, resulted in, brought about, or happened because, as a result of, etc.

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

~Steve

[prep88]

Hi Steve, I am having a problem grasping the concept of Casality in LSAT world sense, for in real world sense I would think that the author believes that free choices lead to (or may sometimes lead to) unrational decisions which may evantually lead to establishing totalitarian regime. Her argumenr literally is -- don't grant too much freedom you will end up having totalitarian regime! That freedom will cause the regime. This is confusing!

Thanks a lot!!!

[Adam Tyson]

I think it's reasonable to view this argument as causal, in the real world sense. It is - you're right. On the LSAT, though, we general reserve our use of causal reasoning analysis (the five classic attacks) for much stronger, more absolute causal arguments. It's hard to use them when the argument is "sometimes X causes Y', but much easier when they claim that X ALWAYS causes Y.

The use of "often" and "frequently", which as Steve says are very "soft" words (and which are entirely subjective - "often" could be just once in 10 times, depending on the circumstances), indicates that we should probably not use our standard causal approaches and instead try another approach. If the argument had been that extreme freedom ALWAYS leads to totalitarianism, then you would pull the causal attack tools out of your bag of tricks and go to work on it without mercy.

Hope that helps!

[prep88]

Thank you guys, this really helps! Now I'm getting the point, which is in LSAT causal relation the stated effect can have no alternate cause and the cause always generates the stated effect that's why there is no room for soft language here? For the same reason, if I encounter a phrase in a passage even with causality indicator word but probabilistic language like "A probably is a reason for B" no causality present?

Thank you