#17 - Global Reference, Must Be True, Principle

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below!

[lsacgals101]

Hi! I keep seeing questions being identified as "MBT principle" or... "strengthen principle" or... "justify principle." Occasionally, your explanations to these questions in this forum shed some light on how to tackle that specific kind/category of question (i.e. how to tackle MBT principle questions).

[For example..."As is common for must Principle questions, you need to understand the conditional reasoning underlying the argument, and prephrase what usually is a missing link between two conditions.]


Despite allusions to "justify principle" questions among others, i have not found any reference or explanation to these in my PowersSore LR bible. How might I find an explanation about these principle questions, or individual explanations about each kind of principle question? Could you please advise?


Thanks!

[Brook Miscoski]

lsacgirl,

What you need to do is ask yourself what direction the information flows.

If the question asks you to find a principle that supports the stimulus, you're generally doing a strengthen (e.g. "most supports") or justify question (e.g. "the conclusion follows if which of the following principles is true"). It's plausible that you could be doing an assumption question (e.g. "the conclusion requires which of the following principles"), but that would be uncommon.

If the question asks you to choose a principle that follows from the stimulus, you're doing a must be true question.

There's no rule that the LSAT couldn't use the word "principle" in other contexts. For example, if I asked you "which of the following principles would be of most assistance in explaining the situation above," you'd be doing a resolve/explain question. But you shouldn't let that worry you.

Don't let the use of the word "principle" get in your way--in fact, replace it with the phrase "answer choices" and read the question that way.

The only real difference is that the use of the word "principle" in the question indicates that the answer choices are likely to be a bit more abstract. Which, on the LSAT, might feel like a heat wave at 110 instead of 100.

[hope]

Hi I must have missed the understanding in passage B because I thought that AC B is asserted in passage B. I is my understanding that passage B is not as pro-candor as passage A but when it asserts things like: "In the absence of any obligation to be candid constraints on judges' powers would be greatly diluted..." And in another place in para 2, it asserts that "In a sense, candor is an essential prerequisite of all other restraints on abuse of judicial power..." Those assertions seem to make a case for the moral consideration that AC B talks about. So how is this assertion not in passage B and only in passage A? Thanks.

[Robert Carroll]

hope,

Passage A contrasts a "moral" approach and a "prudential" approach. The moral approach is one where something is right or wrong to do, and the consequences are irrelevant. The prudential approach instead weighs the positive or negative consequences of an action, and approves or disapproves of an action based on the net effect of those consequences. Passage A then rejects the prudential approach.

Passage B is a paradigm example of the prudential approach that Passage A rejected. Consider the quotes you pointed out - why, from the perspective of Passage B, is there an obligation to be candid? Because of the negative consequences of a lack of candor - abuse of the judicial system, public cynicism, inability to criticize judges, etc. In fact, Passage B only discusses what would happen if lack of candor became the norm - Passage B never says anything like "being candid is good for its own sake". So Passage B's reasons are entirely prudential.

Robert Carroll

[pmuffley]

whewwww - this was a difficult passage. I changed my answer from B to E last minute. I understand why E is wrong. It is because the opposite answer correct? Passage A is in fact saying you shouldn't make judgements based off of prudential considerations - but moral ones. That is, judges should focus on creating good - moral- outcomes?

Anyways...I changed from B because I read that last paragraph of passage B and thought that the following quote was talking about morals: "...But they do suggest that any cost-benefit calculus must take account of the large institutional losses that would result from a lack of trust in the honesty of judges and from an inability to..."

"trust" and "honesty" here are not referring to morals but to practical reasons for judges being honest, right?

Hope I'm making sense

[Adam Tyson]

You are indeed making sense, pmuffley, and the bit about "large institutional losses" is more about prudential (practical) consequences rather than moral ones. It's not "this would be wrong because it would be immoral" but is instead "this would be wrong because it would cause problems." While trust and honestly may have something to do with morality, the author of passage B is concerned not with the moral questions but with the practical consequences of losing that trust.