PrepTest 105, Section 1, Question 17
The difference between manners and morals is that(28 more words not shown)
The statements above, if true,(9 more words not shown)
- AOne could be(10 more words not shown)
- BNo immoral act(9 more words not shown)
- CThe rules of(7 more words not shown)
- DIt is more(9 more words not shown)
- EWhat is social(9 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Saying “please” and “thank you” concerns how we behave with other people. A moral question can be broader: we might still ask whether an action is right or wrong even when nobody else is around. That's the distinction the first sentence draws. Manners are necessarily social; morals aren't necessarily social.
“Not necessarily” matters. It means morality doesn't require a social setting, not that morality disappears whenever other people are present.
What we’re looking for
The move from “manners” to “etiquette” might catch our attention. My initial instinct is to ask how those terms relate. But a change of word isn't automatically a logical error, and this question doesn't ask us to repair the argument. It asks which inference the statements most strongly support. Let's check each inference against what the passage actually says.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Morality isn't limited to conduct affecting other people. So a person could be immoral without having harmed another person. Imagine someone acting cruelly toward an animal while completely alone. That could raise a moral issue without being a matter of etiquette toward other people.
The example illustrates the possibility; we don't need the passage to settle every moral question involving animals. The important support is the statement that morality is not necessarily social. It allows moral judgments outside interactions with other people. We didn't need to resolve a separate question about the words “manners” and “etiquette” to reach this answer.
- B
Distinguishing morals from manners doesn't make them incapable of overlap. An act could be both rude and morally wrong. The passage says morality needn't be social; it doesn't say moral conduct can never also fall under rules of etiquette.
- C
This changes “not necessarily social” into “only when alone.” The passage allows morality outside a social setting; it doesn't confine morality to that setting. Moral rules could apply both when someone is alone and when someone is with others.
- D
No ranking of importance is given. The passage distinguishes when these rules apply, not which kind matters more. Even if this sounds like a reasonable opinion, it doesn't follow from the stated distinction.
- E
Morality can concern social conduct without always having to do so. E rules out every social matter, which is much stronger than the passage's claim. “Doesn't have to be social” is not “cannot be social.”
More Must Be True questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Must Be True questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.