#20 - Philosopher: It is absurd to argue that people are

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Method of Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (B)

The philosopher concludes that moral obligations to act in a certain way cannot be derived from the premise that not acting in that way would be unnatural. For instance, it would be absurd to argue that everyone should be a vegetarian just because eating meat might be "unnatural." To defend her claim, the philosopher defines "unnatural" actions in the following way:

• Violation of laws of nature
  
  Unnatural action → OR
  
  Statistical anomaly

Because the laws of nature cannot be violated ("there is no possibility of acting as one cannot"), the only unnatural actions would be statistical anomalies. However, a statistical anomaly cannot be grounds for creating moral obligations. Therefore, moral obligations cannot be based on the finding that certain actions are unnatural.

Answer choice (A) The philosopher implies that the laws of nature cannot be violated, and accepting the idea of "unnatural" actions is not what violates the laws of nature. This answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. The key term in this argument is "unnatural action." By defining what an unnatural action entails (violation of the laws of nature or a statistical anomaly), the philosopher seeks to demonstrate that unnatural actions cannot be legitimate grounds for moral obligations.

Answer choice (C) The philosopher is not using any statistical findings; she merely states that statistical anomalies cannot be grounds for moral obligations. This answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (D) This is by far the most commonly chosen incorrect answer, since the author does undermine the claim that people can be morally obligated to act in a certain way. However, she never says that this claim is self-contradictory (that would be like saying that "unnatural" actions are actually "moral," or that "moral obligations" are always "unnatural"). This answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (E) The philosopher does not use any empirical evidence to support a claim, let alone distinguish between two definitions of a key term: the key term here ("unnatural action") has only one definition, which is comprised of two necessary conditions ("violation of laws of nature" or "statistical anomaly"). The author has not chosen to adopt one condition over another.

[kristinaroz93]

This question begins with, "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..."

I am really confused with this quesiton as a whole and what it is trying to say. And, also as to how B is the correct answer. Any help would be appreciated greatly.

Thanks!

[Clay Cooper]

Hi Kristina,

Thanks for your question. This argument is indeed confusing, I understand your frustration.

The first step we need to take is to identify the conclusion of the argument: "it is absurd to argue....unnatural."

Now, let's understand how the author supports this argument: by stating what exactly it means for an action to be unnatural: that it violates the laws of nature, or that it is statistically an anomaly. He rules out the possibility of people's actions meeting the first criteria by observing, correctly, that it is impossible for people to act in a way that violates the laws of nature. He then also observes that the statistical rarity of an action is not, in itself, any proof that that action is immoral. Thus the author has demonstrated that, under his definition of an unnatural action, an action's being unnatural is not sufficient to prove that it is immoral.

However, I think we can answer this question even without a perfect understanding of the author's logic, by focusing on the answer choices and ruling out those that don't accurately describe what he does in the argument.

Answer choice A is wrong because the author only mentions laws of nature in order to observe that human action is incapable of violating them; he does not suggest that an action's being unnatural would violate the laws of nature.

Answer choice B is correct because the author defines the term 'unnatural' as violating the laws of nature or being statistically improbable, and his conclusion relies on the two elements of this definition's each independently being insufficient to prove that an action is immoral.

Answer choices C and E are wrong because the author does not cite any statistical or empirical evidence.

Finally, answer choice D is wrong because the author does not claim that it is self-contradictory to suggest that unnatural acts are necessarily immoral; instead, he just defines the terms of that claim and shows that the claim is unfounded (though not necessarily self-contradictory).

I hope this has answered your question, and don't be afraid to rely more heavily on eliminating incorrect answer choices in Method of Reasoning questions - on this type of question in particular, it is often easier for me to spot bad answers than to be sure of good ones.

[testtakernce]

Hello,

I chose D because isn't suggesting that it is not it is impossible to commit an unnatural act (because there is no poss. of acting as one cannot), pointing out a contradiction in the concept of an unnatural act?

If no act is truly unnatural, and yet people are claiming that unnatural acts can be committed, isn't that pointing out a contradiction?

[Herzog.Laura]

testtaker,

That first prong of the definition does seem contradictory with the fact that people commit unnatural acts!

(D) is incorrect because according to the philosopher "unnatural" can be defined in two different ways. Even if people are unable to commit acts that violate the laws of nature, they could commit an act that was a statistical anomaly. Because of that second possible definition, there isn't a contradiction within the argument.

[sherpower]

Hi everyone. On Choice D again, I know it's getting too much, but you are stating that the authors' claims are not contradictory, as when people do not commit an act that is a violation of the laws of nature, they "could commit an act that was a statistical anomaly". However, the selection of the choice D does not narrow down the contradiction in what you stated. I believe that the contradiction is people's belief that "something is not usually done" makes grounds for acceptance the "morally obligated" action. I mean look at the authors first sentence: "it is absurd to argue....". The definition in this argument is an instrument to prove that the reasoning leads to a contradiction, the acceptance of a false assumption by these people that leads to a contradiction: on certain occasions (when violating the laws of nature), they have no option but to act morally, whereas when "something is not usually done," they have an option to either do it or not do it, which could be the opposite of cannot be done, which is a contradiction. What do you think?

[Francis O'Rourke]

Hi Sherpower,

It looks like you are claiming that the argument

"something is not usually done" makes grounds for acceptance the "morally obligated" action

is contradictory.

The speaker did indeed state that the claim "the unnaturalness of an action creates a moral obligation" is a poor argument: it "provides [no] good reason not to do it." In other words, the speaker thinks that the reasoning is insufficient.

You may be defining "contradiction" too broadly. A contradiction is not merely a bad argument. Remember that a contradiction refers to a logically incompatible statement.

I am not sure what you mean when you refer to "on certain occasions (when violating the laws of nature), they have no option but to act morally." The speaker claimed that it was impossible to violate the laws of nature.

Let me know if you would like more help with this question!

[sherpower]

Thank you very much Francis.

I see your point. Indeed the contradiction in this argument, if any, is almost nonexistent compared to the obvious application of the methodology of defining a key term, which is central to the argument and effectively proves the author's point, unlike the contradiction that is lost somewhere between the possibility and impossibility of a certain action that would lead to diametrically opposite results for the people's argument (the "unnatural" thing cannot be done, whereas the "not usually done" could be done sometimes, which is the opposite of cannot be done, which is a contradiction). But it's really farfetched and I totally see your point. Thanks again.

[Blueballoon5%]

Hi Sherpower,

It looks like you are claiming that the argument

"something is not usually done" makes grounds for acceptance the "morally obligated" action

is contradictory.

The speaker did indeed state that the claim "the unnaturalness of an action creates a moral obligation" is a poor argument: it "provides [no] good reason not to do it." In other words, the speaker thinks that the reasoning is insufficient.

You may be defining "contradiction" too broadly. A contradiction is not merely a bad argument. Remember that a contradiction refers to a logically incompatible statement.

I am not sure what you mean when you refer to "on certain occasions (when violating the laws of nature), they have no option but to act morally." The speaker claimed that it was impossible to violate the laws of nature.

Let me know if you would like more help with this question!

Hi Francis! I am having trouble understanding the wording of "contradiction" in this answer choice. Like others, I chose answer choice D. Could you possibly give us an example of a claim that is self-contradictory?

Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

An internal contradiction, blueballoon, happens when the authors premises conflict with each other or else they prove the premises conflict with, rather than support, the conclusion. Here's an example of an internal contradiction:

"If we raise the price of our product, we will increase our revenues substantially thanks to all the additional income, and we will also become perceived by the buying public as a more desirable and luxurious item as fewer customers will be able to afford to purchase it."

Which is it - will we sell a lot more products, driving up revenues, or will we have fewer customers able to afford the product? I can't have it both ways!

These don't happen very frequently on the LSAT, because they are typically very obvious, and the authors don't like to make it easy on us. This answer choice, however, is very common, because it is just confusing enough that a lot of people will pick it because they don't entirely understand it. Don't select an answer that describes an internal contradiction unless you can clearly see that the author has made claims that cannot both be true.