PrepTest 116, Section 2, Question 20
Social critic: One of the most important ways(51 more words not shown)
The social critic's argument is(9 more words not shown)
- Aoverlooks the possibility(18 more words not shown)
- Bfails to address(24 more words not shown)
- Cpresumes, without providing(26 more words not shown)
- Dtakes for granted(20 more words not shown)
- Epresumes, without providing(24 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Teaching children to feel ashamed could make them suffer. I'm willing to accept that concern. But how much suffering might the lesson prevent?
Suppose teaching children that stealing is wrong causes some guilt and shame but also prevents theft. The avoided theft could spare other people hardship: a shopkeeper keeps the income needed to support a family, or someone keeps food they otherwise would have lost. Those are possible benefits to put on the other side of the comparison.
The critic gives us only the suffering caused by guilt and self-loathing, then announces an increase in total suffering. We haven't compared that cost with the suffering prevented. The cost might be greater, or the benefit might be greater. Knowing there is a cost doesn't tell us the net result.
What we’re looking for
For the flaw question, I'd want an answer about that missing comparison. We don't have to defend every use of shame or declare this a good parenting technique. We just need to see why evidence of some harm doesn't establish more harm overall.
Working the answers
- A
The critic doesn't conclude that this way of teaching morality must be eliminated. The conclusion concerns its effect on suffering. Whether we could modify the practice instead of eliminating it would matter to a recommendation about what to do next, but it doesn't identify the missing comparison behind this conclusion.
- B
The argument doesn't reject a causal connection because two things fail to occur together every time. It accepts that shame can cause guilt and hardship in many people. The problem comes afterward, when that harmful effect is treated as enough to establish an increase in total suffering.
- C
Again, the critic doesn't say the practice should be changed or eliminated. C treats the claimed increase in suffering as a starting point for a recommendation. Here, the increase is itself the conclusion that needs support. Don't add a policy recommendation the author hasn't made.
- DCorrect
The behavior is using shame to teach morality; the phenomenon is suffering. That behavior can cause some suffering and still prevent even more suffering. Our theft example shows how: guilt could harm some people while reduced theft spares others a greater amount of hardship.
That doesn't prove moral socialization reduces suffering. It shows why the critic hasn't established an increase. We need to consider both the suffering created and the suffering avoided before deciding the overall effect.
- E
The critic doesn't claim that no one reacts positively. A net increase allows some benefits; it means the harms outweigh them. The problem is that we haven't been given that comparison, not that the critic explicitly denies every positive reaction.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.