#5 - Concept Reference, Must Be True, Subject Perspective

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

The correct answer choice is (B).

Answer choice (A):

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

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D):

Answer choice (E):

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

[dbrowning]

Hi, I struggled with understanding question 5. I assume that the answer comes from this blurb.

Can the opponent of national service truly claim that activities of the military such as quelling civil disorders, rebuilding dams and bridges, or assisting the victims of natural disasters—all extraneous to the defense of society against outside aggression—do not provide a similar benefit to the nation?

This confused me, because the author concludes that the opponents of compulsory service cannot make the above claim, making the information the author's analysis of the opponents. In this type of question, do we have to accept the author's analysis of a certain group as evidence of what that group is likely to believe? Or does the answer simply arise elsewhere in the passage?

Thanks

[Zach Foreman]

dbrowning,
This one is a very difficult one and I think the answer can be obtained more from analyzing the answer choices than the passage itself. We first see that all five answers talk about the use of tax revenue. This means that we are not looking for opponents who dislike any type of taxation. We are looking for someone who will accept certain taxes but not others. The first thought might be to make a distinction between direct defense and things of benefit to the nation (as discussed in 45-50). But B, D and E all talk about non-defense benefits such as natural disaster relief. We must look further.
And we see that only B talks about citizens of other nations. Bingo.
When we turn back to the passage, we see that the author AND the imagined opponents of the author both assume that taxation and national service will have benefit to the nation/community. It is all over the passage. The author uses "benefit of society" multiple times. Using taxes to aid other countries doesn't have a direct or obvious benefit to society.
This would be the most effective argument by the opponents because it would undermine the basic assumption that the author's argument rests upon, namely, certain obligations can be required of citizens for the good of that society.

[dbrowning]

Thanks for the response Zach. Looking back, I think B is the credited answer because the passage focuses only the citizens of the nation to which the taxes are levied. That said, I still have a couple problems with the question. It seems like arguing that assisting persons of other nations is not a defense strategy requires a fairly large assumption. I thought of the Marshall Plan as a type of counterexample to that assumption. Even with your analysis of the question, we still have to believe the author's perspective on the opponents rather than their actual beliefs to make sense of the question.

Are questions like this at all common in modern LSATs? I fear that relying heavily on comparing answer choices can be a dangerous game to play.

[Jeremy Press]

Hi dbrowning!

Thanks for pushing on this one further. It's a difficult question, as Zach noted, and (to answer your last question first) it's a very common type of question even on the most recent of tests. Viewpoint questions (including questions that require you to assess the viewpoints of people who are not the author of the passage) are both common and, at times, quite subtle.

You're right that we have to accept the author's attribution of beliefs to the opponents, but the stem asks us to base our answer on information in the passage, so that attribution is all we have to go on in this question. We ought not inject our own suppositions about what those viewpoints are likely to be. And we can reasonably assume the author is arguing in good faith for the purpose of this type of question.

Let me also suggest another possible source of textual evidence of the correct answer, very much in line with Zach's assessment of the answer choices. In lines 34-35, the author attributes this position to the opponents: "the opponent of national service has already allowed that it is a right of government to demand service when it is needed." Again assuming that's a good-faith attribution, the question then becomes (as the author points out), the "true scope of the term 'need.' " You correctly state that the passage only describes need in terms of the needs of the citizen of the nation of which the author (and the opponents) are citizens. If the opponents would (at least prior to encountering this author's argument) resist labeling as "necessary" even some things that would directly benefit citizens (disaster relief and infrastructure projects), then we can safely assume such opponents would be even more resistant to labeling as "necessary" things that would directly benefit non-citizens. Your reference to the Marshall Plan is interesting, but without that historical example in the passage, we cannot (and should not, in a question that asks for an answer based on information in the passage) use it as a yardstick against which to measure the answers.

I hope this helps!

Jeremy

[demk26]

Hi PS,

I approached this question a slightly different way than above, but still with a focus on the answer choices.

I took my support from the passage primarily from the text below:

"Even the most conservative of politicians admits...while not necessary for the survival of the state, are nevertheless of great benefit to society. Can the opponent of national service truly claim that activities of the military such as quelling civil disorders, rebuilding dams and bridges, or assisting the victims of natural disasters—all extraneous to the defense of society against outside aggression—do not provide a similar benefit to the nation? These opponents must concede that such broadened conception of "necessary" is essential to the functioning of a liberal democratic state."

Answer (A) - Defends society against outside aggression, so opponents wouldn't object to this.

Answer (B) - This stood out to me because it was the only AC that dealt with "outside nations" and not our nation. The author says "provide a similar benefit to our nation," not just any nation. My rationale was that maybe our contributing to other nations would protect us from outside aggression? But I see that this is not directly contributing a benefit to our nation.

Answer (C) - A standing army would also defend us from outside aggression and provide benefit to the nation.

Answer (D) & (E) are both specifically mentioned in the passage (which threw me off) but are cited by the author as providing similar benefit to the nation. Although he notes they might be "extraneous," they are essential to the functioning of a liberal democratic state.

Please let me know if that reasoning is sound. Thank you!

[KelseyWoods]

Hi demk26!

Yes, the main difference between answer choice (B) and the other answer choices is that (B) is the only one in which the tax would benefit citizens of other nations, as opposed to directly benefiting the nation's citizens. Good work!

Best,
Kelsey