#18 - Altruistic: All actions are motivated by

[jrschultz14]

Hi JR! Thanks for your question, and happy to help you out with this

Great job identifying the premise and the conclusion of this argument. Let me put this another way and re-phrase the argument, because this will be helpful to see why answer choice (B) is correct: the author argues that all actions are motivated by self-interest because we can describe altruistic acts in terms of self-interest. The author then gives an example of how we can describe helping someone in terms of self-interest.

The reason I italicized "are" and "can" in my summary of the argument is that this is the crux of the flaw: the author makes a conclusion about what actions must be based on how we can describe them. But just because we can describe a specific type of action (altruistic acts) in terms of self-interest does not mean that all actions must be motivated by self-interest. Perhaps we can describe actions in non-self-interested ways; if there are multiple ways to describe an action, then we cannot conclude anything about what those actions must be. Note that your prephrase for this question definitely touches on this disconnect between "are" and "can"

Turning to answer choice (B), this matches our prephrase. Answer choice (B) tells us that the argument uses evidence that shows the conclusion could be true to argue that the conclusion must be true. This is what the stimulus does: the author uses evidence that shows that we can describe certain actions in terms of self-interest (using an example of a particular altruistic act) to prove the conclusion that all actions must be self-interested. But providing one example just shows us that the conclusion could be true, not that it must be true; the example of being able to describe helping someone in terms of self-interest means actions may be motivated by self-interest, but not that they must be.

To clarify your specifc question about answer choice (B) a bit further: the author did provide evidence that their conclusion could be true, which is the example of being able to describe helping someone in terms of self-interest. The issue is this evidence does not mean that the conclusion must be true. When the answer choice uses the word "argument," they do not mean "premise." Instead, the argument refers to the stimulus as a whole. Since the stimulus itself does take evidence of what can be true as proof of what must be true, this is the correct answer choice.

I hope this helps, and please let me know if you have any other questions!

Thanks so much, Beatrice! This was helpful.

I guess I have trained myself to disregard parts of the stimulus that don't act directly as a premise or conclusion, so I ignored the example. But in this case, the example actually acted as support / a premise in its own way, and I should not have ignored it.

[Adam354]

jessicamorehead,

Thanks for the question! I think ruling out (D) the way you did might be okay, but I would not be too quick to eliminate answers based on one or two words (the LSAT can sometimes try and trick us that way!) Alternatively, you could also try and think about what the answer choices are arguing...choice (D) argues that it "ignores the possibility that what is taken to be necessary for a certain interest to be a motivation actually suffices to show that that interest is a motivation"...but not only does it not ignore this possibility, this is the exact argument the author makes! She is saying exactly that - that a condition that may be necessary (self-interest) for a motivation is sufficient to show it is a motivation. So this can't be the flaw, because the author distinctively does not ignore this possibility.

Hope that helps!
Alex

Agree. For D to be correct, it would have had to said does not suffice or cannot suffice.

What is necessary for self interest to be a motivation= Self interest is involved
What is sufficient for self interest to be a motivation= We don't know.

If bread and jelly are necessary for a PB&J sandwich, that does not mean it is sufficient for a PB&J sandwich. Furthermore, we don't know what type of "motivation sandwich" this is.

Therefore the author is claiming that what is necessary is also sufficient.
This is the opposite of the author ignoring the possibility that what is necessary is also sufficient.

Answer B uses the same relationship: What could be true (it includes what is necessary and possibly sufficient) does not mean that it is definitively sufficient and true.

This question also forces a specific definition of motivation that is not held in the psychology world, which is interesting, being that the topic is about psychology. I suppose this is a realistic phenomenon when test writers who are not experts on the fields they are writing about, want to ensure test takers are able to objectively use popular definitions despite their lack of correctness in their applicable fields. For example, if we define motivation as an unconscious endeavor, with 80% of the mind being unconscious, and/or we allow the fact that "rooted in" self interest which applies to the basic pain or pleasure principle of human instinct, is sufficient to be defined as motivating, then it's a different story. In this case, the author is using the definition of motivation that does not equal "rooted in," and / or is representing a misinformed or person using incorrect terminology. Any of those are a realistic possibility for what people encounter in the world pragmatically, though, and thinkin about such would be a distraction to getting the question right.

Annoying still since it makes it seem like the test writer was just trying to change the definition of motivation to suit their personal bias and ability to say that charity isn't from self interest. Of course it is. It is just that some self interest is good, and others are not. The resistance to allowing for self-interest to be good, is probably related to the negative connotations revolving around the word selfish, and it becomes easier for people to change the definition of motivation, than to change the connotations of self-interest and/or selfish.

[Adam Tyson]

An important aspect of success on the LSAT is leaving our outside knowledge outside, and just focusing on the internal world of the author of the argument. Otherwise, we start to focus on the flaw in their knowledge instead of a flaw in their reasoning, and the LSAT cares only about reasoning. Facts and truth are mostly irrelevant to this test. Good job keeping the two separated!