PrepTest 105, Section 1, Question 21
Two doctrines have been greatly influential in this(66 more words not shown)
The argument depends on assuming(5 more words not shown)
- AThe first doctrine(9 more words not shown)
- BThe second doctrine(6 more words not shown)
- CHistorical events are(13 more words not shown)
- DOne is likely(16 more words not shown)
- EAppeals to both(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why can't both kinds of explanation apply to the same event?
The first doctrine says an explanation must include economic factors. The second tries to explain events psychologically, especially through childhood experiences. Those are broad claims, and I might question whether they work for every historical event. What about an event caused by a natural disaster? But the author offers a different objection: some events had both economic and psychological causes.
That doesn't obviously contradict either doctrine. Saying we must consider economics doesn't say we must ignore psychology. Imagine a decision influenced both by financial pressure and by a participant's childhood experiences. An account could include both. The doctrines, as described, don't clearly forbid that.
What we’re looking for
The author's argument depends on treating the explanations as exclusive: economic factors alone, or psychological factors alone. The assumption question should give us that missing exclusion. If the doctrines permit the combination, pointing to an event with both kinds of cause hasn't shown that either doctrine is mistaken.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
This makes the first doctrine exclude noneconomic factors. Now an event whose explanation also requires childhood experiences would be a problem for that doctrine: the doctrine would prohibit a factor the explanation needs.
Without A, the first doctrine could insist that economics must be included while allowing psychological factors too. The author's example would then fit the doctrine rather than refute it. A supplies an assumption needed for the attack on the first doctrine; it need not settle every part of the attack on both doctrines by itself.
- B
The second doctrine emphasizes childhood experiences, but it need not regard them as the only important psychological factors. It could also allow experiences in adulthood, for example. The missing distinction is between a doctrine that excludes other kinds of explanation and one that allows them. B instead narrows psychology to one particular part of it, which the argument doesn't require.
- C
The two kinds of factor do not have to contribute equally. One could matter far more than the other while both remain part of an event's explanation. The argument concerns whether a doctrine can accommodate more than one kind of factor, not whether the factors have matching amounts of influence.
- D
What explanations people have proposed is different from what actually explains an event. The author doesn't need both kinds of explanation to have been proposed for any given event. A relevant event could have gone undiscussed. The argument uses the claim that some events had both kinds of cause, not a survey of which explanations have been offered.
- E
Some events requiring both kinds of factor doesn't establish that every event requires both. The author could accept events caused only by economic factors, or only by psychological ones, while still arguing that the mixed cases defeat exclusive doctrines. E imposes a universal requirement the argument does not need.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.