#14 - Zachary: One would have to be blind to the reality of

[jcough346]

Is this a method of reasoning question?

[Adam Tyson]

Hey again, jcough! It sure looks that way at first glance, doesn't it? But no, it's not, although I have to believe the authors knew that many people would attack it as if it was one because there are so many elements that are similar to a classic Method question. Two speakers, a question about the second one's response, the use of the word "structured" - it's all there, looking familiar enough to send us down the wrong path if we aren't careful.

In fact, this question is really asking for Cynthia's Main Point! It's not about how she responded to Zachary but about what her reply was meant to demonstrate. That means what she tried to show, or prove. Looked at that way, it gets a lot easier to prephrase a good answer. What Cynthia is trying to do, or prove, is that Zachary's position is inherently flawed.

That one was pretty mean, wasn't it? The authors at LSAC never seem to tire of finding new ways to trick...*ahem* I mean challenge...us. This one is pretty old, over 20 years ago, but it's the kind of thing I would still expect them to pull on us today if they were feeling especially ornery.

Don't fall for it, jcough! Stay alert! Good luck fighting the good fight, brother.

[LSAT2018]

Given stimulus and the answer 'Zachary’s principle is untenable on its own terms,' I felt that it seemed to refer to Internal Contradiction (Flaw in the Reasoning). Am I not understanding the principle correctly?

[Malila Robinson]

Hi LSAT2018,
I'm not quite sure whether you are asking if this is a Flaw in the Reasoning question, or whether the flaw in Zachary's reasoning that Cynthia is pointing out is an Internal Contradiction.

If it is the former, then as Adam explained (above) this is a tough one to pin down, but since the question stem is asking what her argument is structured to prove rather than how she structured it, it is a Main Point question.

If it is the latter then yes, Zachary's reasoning is flawed and an argument could be made that the flaw is an Internal Contradiction, since Cynthia points out that in some circumstances (such as when 2 people hold opposing morally obligatory courses of action) Zach's argument contradicts itself. An argument could also be made that this is an Error in the Use of Evidence: Lack of Support for the Conclusion, since Cynthia points out that because it appears that Zachary failed to consider the possibility of people holding opposing morally obligatory courses of action his conclusion is too strong.

Hope that helps,
-Malila

[chian9010]

Could someone tell me what's wrong with D)?

[deck1134]

Just seconding Jay's comment. I almost fell for the main-point/method trap here, and that led me to (C). But (D) is wrong, I think because it isn't necessarily about being "understood" differently, but rather people holding different convictions. Is that correct?

[Francis O'Rourke]

Hi Chian and Deck!

Cynthia's response does not lead to the claim that it is always "impossible to find [any] principle concerning moral rights and duties that applies to everyone." This is much broader than her argument.

Cynthia's only point is that the one principle that Zachary described is incorrect. Cynthia may believe that there exists some other principle everyone can follow. She may not. However, Cynthia's argument is much too limited in scope for us to choose answer choice (D).

Furthermore, as you point out Deck, Cynthia does not think that different people understand the rules differently. It is because if people follow the rule correctly Zachary's position is untenable.

Let us know if you have any other questions!

[Legalistic]

I'm finding it extremely difficult to understand this stimulus. Any tips on how to understand a confusing stimulus like this?

[Adam Tyson]

My head starts to swim whenever I read these stimuli that talk about morals and ethics and duties! They are pure torture to me. My tip for dealing with them starts with focusing on the question stem, and not allowing yourself to get lost in the details of the stimulus. If we can understand what we are being asked to do, we have a better chance of figuring out how to do it. A lot of the time, the parts in the stimulus that confuse us turn out to just be a distraction, so any attempt to decipher them is just wasting time and effort on the wrong task!

Focus on what matters, the things we are likely to be asked about. What's the conclusion? What evidence was presented to support it? Does that evidence actually support it? What type of reasoning was used - conditional, causal, analogy, example, process of elimination, etc.? By looking for these things, instead of getting caught up in the psychobabble, we can stay focused and clear and not get lost and confused.

[tug59567]

Hello Powerscore, you look great today!

This question stumped me since I did not know the meaning of "untenable". I picked E because it best matched my prephrase of "Zachary's idea of moral obligation is incorrect", and frankly, because I knew what all the words meant.

What about "E" tells you that it is incorrect? What should one do when they can't decipher the meaning of a vital word? I had the ACs for this question eliminated down to C and E.

Thank you!