PrepTest 101, Section 2, Question 23
Essayist: The existence of a moral order in(80 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(9 more words not shown)
- AFrom the assertion(26 more words not shown)
- BThe argument takes(6 more words not shown)
- CFrom the claim(34 more words not shown)
- DThe argument treats(12 more words not shown)
- EThe argument's conclusion(11 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why would living forever guarantee that someone gets punished?
The essayist begins with a different claim: for there to be a moral order in which wrongdoing is eventually punished and goodness rewarded, human souls must be immortal. I would question even that starting point. Couldn't someone receive consequences for a limited time after death—say, a hundred years—and then cease to exist? That would be punishment without an immortal soul.
But even if we grant the opening requirement, the conclusion still doesn't follow. Requiring immortality for a system of justice doesn't mean immortality creates that system. A soul could go on existing without anyone ever administering a punishment. The continued existence supplies time for consequences; it doesn't by itself supply the consequences.
The accounts of karma and a supreme being describe different ways cultures imagine justice being delivered. Neither description establishes that the mere fact of an immortal soul guarantees punishment. Yet that is what the last sentence claims: if souls are immortal, the bad will be punished.
What we’re looking for
For the flaw, keep those directions separate. The premise makes immortality something a moral order needs. The conclusion treats immortality as enough to bring about punishment. We can challenge the starting requirement, but this extra leap remains even if we accept it.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
The “something” described as necessary is the immortality of human souls. The opening says a moral order depends on that. The conclusion then treats that same thing—immortality—as sufficient to guarantee one element of the order, the punishment of the bad.
Having something a system needs doesn't establish that the whole system, or even this promised consequence, is in place. The essayist hasn't shown who or what ensures punishment merely because souls continue to exist. A identifies the step from a requirement to a guarantee.
- B
The conclusion is conditional: if human souls are immortal, then punishment follows. The essayist doesn't simply announce that souls are immortal because some people believe in them. Our objection concerns what is supposed to follow from immortality, even if it is granted. B doesn't describe that mistake.
- C
This puts the two claims in the wrong places. The argument starts by saying a moral order requires immortality; C describes it as starting with immortality implying a moral order. The argument then goes from immortality to punishment; C describes a conclusion going from moral order to immortality. The direction matters. An answer can mention both ideas and still misdescribe how the author connects them.
- D
The passage recognizes different explanations for how justice is delivered: karma in one account and a supreme being in another. It doesn't need to erase that difference to discuss the shared idea of wrongdoing being punished. The mistake is the claim that immortality alone ensures punishment, not merely the decision to discuss these different accounts together.
- E
The definition tells us what a moral order would involve: punishment for bad conduct and reward for good conduct. It doesn't already say that immortality guarantees either result. The conclusion adds that claim. So the problem isn't simply repeating the definition as the conclusion; it's treating an alleged requirement for moral order as enough to produce an element of it.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.