PrepTest 101, Section 2, Question 9
Historian: Anyone who thinks that the terrors of(65 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(11 more words not shown)
- AThe pursuit of(5 more words not shown)
- BThe pursuit of(3 more words not shown)
- CExecution in pursuit(10 more words not shown)
- DFanaticism in pursuit(4 more words not shown)
- EEnthusiasm in pursuit(10 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Were the ordinary people the ones carrying out the executions?
The regime was made up mainly of ordinary people seeking paradise. I can understand how that goal might lead people to excuse terrible acts: they might tell themselves the promised result makes the means acceptable. Still, saying the regime executed people doesn't tell us exactly what each ordinary member did.
Some might have carried out executions. Others might have gone along with the regime without personally killing anyone. If the historian wants to call those people murderers, we need a connection between their conduct and that description. Being an ordinary member and being a murderer aren't automatically the same thing.
What we’re looking for
The question asks for the principle that most supports the historian. My first thought is a rule making participation or complicity in these executions enough to count as murder. That would help connect ordinary membership with responsibility for the killings. More broadly, keep the term “murder” in view: the argument tells us about executions in pursuit of an impossible goal, then concludes that some ordinary people were murderers. We need help making that step.
Working the answers
- A
This tells us that a goal doesn't justify murder. It doesn't tell us which killings count as murder in the first place. To apply A, we'd already need to classify the executions as murders—the very connection we wanted help establishing. Saying an act cannot be justified by a certain goal is different from showing that these people committed that act.
- B
Whether seeking paradise justifies fanaticism doesn't establish that the executions were murders or that the ordinary people were murderers. It supplies a judgment about fanaticism, while the conclusion we need to support uses a different description.
- CCorrect
This takes a different route from my first prediction. Rather than defining an ordinary member's responsibility for the regime, it tells us how to classify the executions themselves.
The regime executed people while pursuing paradise. That paradise was later found to be unattainable. C says executions with exactly those features constitute murder. It therefore supplies a reason to treat the regime's executions as murders, which supports the historian's conclusion about people in the regime.
It doesn't separately tell us which ordinary members participated or say that every member is a murderer. Our question about participation hasn't vanished. But the task asks for the principle giving the most support, not one proving every part of the conclusion beyond any remaining question. C directly connects the described killings to the term the conclusion needs.
- D
“Inhumanity” isn't the conclusion we're trying to establish. Even if fanaticism in pursuit of paradise is inhumane, that rule doesn't classify the executions as murder. We shouldn't silently replace one moral description with another.
- E
This could help call the people's enthusiasm fanaticism once their goal proves unattainable. But calling someone a fanatic doesn't establish that the person is a murderer. E takes us to a different description and leaves the crucial connection to the executions unmade.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.