#2 - Specific Reference, Must Be True, Purpose/Function

[Administrator]

Please post below with any questions!

[eronquillo12]

Hi- could I see the explanation for why D is correct? I picked B ( I went back and forth between D and B) but I had a hard time with this reading comp passage. I missed most of the answers.

[Adam Tyson]

Start with your prephrase, eronquillo12 - what did YOU think was the purpose of asking that question about "what else should we do"? Our author ultimately argues against utilitarianism (and tells us how Rawls solved the problem). So why does he ask a question that seems to suggest that utilitarianism makes sense? To do exactly that - to show that utilitarianism does appear, at least on its face before we dig deeper into some of the absurd consequences of such a worldview, to be reasonable.

How does the question show an internal contradiction? Does ANYTHING about the theory of utilitarianism contradict itself? Not exactly, or at least not in this passage. It's not that the theory contradicts itself, but that it potentially leads to some extreme and absurd results. That's not an internal contradiction, but a problem with extremes, which is a whole other kettle of fish.

It all starts with your prephrase, though. You have to come up with your own answer to the question, BEFORE looking at any answer choices, and that answer has to make sense. Then, and only then, should you move to the answers and sort losers and contenders, throwing out anything that fails to match up with your prephrase and keeping anything that appears to be consistent with it.

Try that again - apply your own "veil of ignorance" and pretend that you have no idea what the right answer is, and ask yourself "why did the author include this question in this passage?" Your answer to that question should assist you greatly in picking the best answer from among the five choices. Good luck!

[kevin.hussain24]

Hello,
Why is A wrong if he does not agree with utilitarianism?
He asked the question to later say how odd it is so I'm confused on why D is right?
Is it right becuase he asked the question before saying it utilitarianism has odd consequences?
Thank you
Kevin H

[Adam Tyson]

Good question, Kevin! Yes, our author does have a problem with utilitarianism, but look at the context of the question. Just before he poses it, the author says that utilitarianism does seem plausible. Just after the question, he begins to counter that claim with a statement that starts with the word "but." So while it is true that ultimately the author disagrees with the utilitarian approach, the purpose of that question, in that context, is to show that utilitarianism does appear at first to look like it might make sense. It's like our author was saying "I can see why you might be confused about this!" right before going on to show us why we shouldn't be fooled by that appearance of plausibility.

So yes, in part it is because the question was posed before he countered the idea that the question supported! But mostly it's because of how the question was related to the text around it, especially before it, that gives it meaning and purpose.

[mkarimi73]

Ok...I changed my answer from (D) to (A) because I thought there was a trap here. There was no trap. I understand "intuitive" to mean "commonsense," thus the question in the first paragraph is meant to suggest that utilitarianism can be interpreted as "commonsense" by average folk. I switched and ultimately picked (A) because "implausible" can also mean "not seeming reasonable or probable."

In the end however, context clues matter. The wording of the answer choices matter too! (A) says "point out an implausible feature of utilitarianism." The highlighted phrase in the passage is not pointing out a feature of utilitarianism but rather an ODD/BAD consequence. If (A) had said, "point out an implausible consequence of utilitarianism, then this would have been a contender, correct? Am I attacking this properly?

Pre-phrases are very important, but the wording of answer choices matching your pre-phrase matters too. I've been trying to use flash-cards to help with my vocabulary on the RC portions of the LSAT, but sometimes there can be multiple definitions to a single word. How can I best figure out what the author is saying/what definition the test-makers are using? Thanks.

[Adam Tyson]

I'd say that the question is pointing out something that seems plausible, mkarimi73, rather than something implausible. It's just that the author ultimately thinks that this seemingly plausible, sensible idea turns out to be a problem because it can lead to some unjust consequences. It looks good on paper, but in practice it fails in at least some cases. That's not so much about plausibility, but about being misleadingly attractive.

To clarify, if something seems implausible, that means it appears to be unreasonable or improbable. The feature (if we can call it that) of utilitarianism actually seems reasonable, even though it may not always bring about good results.