#17 - Global Reference, Must Be True

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation
(See the complete passage discussion here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=10859)

The correct answer choice is (D)

This question asks us to determine a similarity in the pattern of reasoning employed by both passages. As prephrased in our discussion of Passage Similarities and Differences above, both authors concede that there is some justification in treating wrongdoers the way they treat others, but both express serious reservations with this view (lines 23-27 and 41-46).

Answer choice (A): Both authors anticipate a logical inference that could be drawn from a theory, but neither refutes a probable objection to that theory.

Answer choice (B): Neither author uses an analogy in support of a general claim.

Answer choice (C): The first author presents a specific hypothetical in the first paragraph, but no such case is presented in passage B.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. As discussed above, both authors suggest potential unreasonable consequences of treating a wrongdoer the way he has treated others (lines 23-27 and 41-46).

Answer choice (E): Neither author offers or defends a new definition for a common term.

[rachelbernard]

Would you say that for something to be an objection, a tangible person/group has to be making the assertion? Like, would A be correct if the passages had instead said something like "And yet many say that that there is some justification for responding to lies with lies"?

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Rachel,

For there to be an objection, it needs to be a clearly stated point that would make one question a particular position. It doesn't need a clear advocate---the author themselves can bring up an objection. The problem with answer choice (A) is that there's no clear objection stated for the author to refute. Even if you treat the statement you gave as an objection, the author doesn't refute that. They acknowledges that there's some justification for lying to liars--the liar has earned that behavior.

Let's think about what the structure of the argument described in answer choice (A) would look like.

Claim: Inside Out was the best movie made in 2015
Objection: If it was the best movie, it would have received Best Picture at the Oscars
Refutation: There are many other groups that consider a broader class of movies for Best Picture than the Oscars that did name Inside Out the best movie of the year.

*Note: I have no idea if anyone named Inside Out the movie of the year, but they certainly should have.*

Neither Passage A nor Passage B proceeds like that. We don't have the author of either refuting the potential implied objection. Passage B even sets out that the potential objection is an incorrect inference based on the claim, not an objection that could be refuted.

Hope that helps!
Rachael

[cd1010]

Hi! In reference to the explanation for A: could you clarify where both passages "anticipate a logical inference that could be drawn from a theory,"?

Would it be:
Passage A: Surely, as the idea of forfeiture suggests, the liar would have no cause for complaint if lied to.
Passage B: From this it might be concluded that we have a duty to do to offenders what they have done, since this amounts to according them the respect due rational beings.

Because the author then responded to these, I interpreted the response to be 'objections', although I do see now what the explanation is saying. Just trying to see what went wrong in my thought process. Thanks!

[Jeff Wren]

Hi cd,

While I don't want to speak for the original poster who answered this question, I think that you're correct with the logical inferences that you cited.

One small but important detail is that Answer A mentions "the most probable objections" (plural). The way the question is worded, each passage would have to bring up and then refute more than one objection for this to be the correct answer.

For Answer D, it makes sense that consequences is plural because each passage mentions multiple negative consequences rather than just one. In A, the negative consequences are "harm to self, others, and general trust" (lines 24-25). In B, the negative consequences are "a duty to do to all rational persons everything--good, bad, or indifferent--that they do to others" (lines 44-46).