LR Drill Set 7, Question 3
Leticia: People with an exceptional talent for teaching(73 more words not shown)
Leticia's and Eugene's statements provide(15 more words not shown)
- AAn exceptionally talented(18 more words not shown)
- BIt should be(13 more words not shown)
- COnly students with(11 more words not shown)
- DSome talented teachers(20 more words not shown)
- EExceptionally talented teachers(20 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Being able to help is one thing. Being morally required to spend your whole life helping in that particular way is another.
Leticia moves from society's need for outstanding teachers to a lifelong obligation for anyone with exceptional teaching talent. Even finding the work unfulfilling doesn't release that person, on her view. I want a reason why the need makes the career compulsory.
What we’re looking for
Eugene rejects that step. He agrees that choosing to teach for society's benefit would deserve praise, but praise is not the same as duty. For him, talent doesn't itself create an obligation to use it. So the disagreement question should turn on whether talented people must teach, not merely whether their teaching would be valuable.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Leticia would require the exceptionally talented teacher to stay in teaching, so taking a better-paid job outside it would violate the obligation she describes. Eugene denies that teaching talent imposes that requirement. He could admire someone who stays while still allowing that person to choose another career. The offer creates a concrete test of their disagreement over moral duty.
- B
This asks what should be legally permitted. A person could believe leaving teaching is morally wrong but oppose a law forcing teachers to stay. Neither speaker connects moral obligations to legal restrictions, so we cannot infer opposing views about legal permission from this exchange.
- C
“Only” would restrict a teaching obligation to exceptionally talented students and rule it out for everyone else. Leticia says exceptional talent creates an obligation; she doesn't say nobody else could have one for some other reason. Eugene denies obligations arising from talent, but neither speaker supplies the exclusive rule C asks about. The issue isn't simply that C mentions students; it's the stronger restriction it adds.
- D
A teacher might personally be better off leaving even if Leticia thought the teacher had a moral duty to stay. She explicitly allows that the required career may not be fulfilling. Eugene's denial of an obligation also doesn't settle every teacher's response to stress. Personal benefit and moral requirement are different questions.
- E
Believing in an obligation might improve a teacher's work, or it might not. Neither speaker discusses that effect. Their dispute concerns whether the obligation exists, not whether believing in it produces better performance. We shouldn't substitute a possible consequence of a belief for the claim they actually debate.
More Disagreement questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Disagreement questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.