PrepTest 120, Section 3, Question 20
Philosopher: It is absurd to argue that people(63 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(10 more words not shown)
- Aundermining a concept(11 more words not shown)
- Bstating the definition(7 more words not shown)
- Cusing statistical findings(4 more words not shown)
- Dundermining a claim(7 more words not shown)
- Eusing empirical evidence(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why would “unnatural” tell us what we're morally required to do?
Suppose someone naturally craves doughnuts. That doesn't make eating them a moral duty. The philosopher is questioning that kind of move from a claim about nature to a claim about obligation.
The next sentence gives “unnatural” two meanings: violating a law of nature, or being unusual. The philosopher then considers each. If an action is impossible under the laws of nature, we can't perform it anyway. If it is merely unusual, its rarity doesn't by itself tell us to avoid it. Imagine getting up very early to make breakfast for someone: being uncommon wouldn't make that act wrong.
What we’re looking for
The abstract wording can make this feel harder than it is. The question asks for a technique used in the argument, so we don't need an answer that captures every step. One concrete thing we can identify is the definition of “unnatural action.” Let's check whether a choice accurately describes that move.
Working the answers
- A
The philosopher doesn't show that accepting a concept would violate a law of nature. Violating natural laws is one proposed meaning of “unnatural,” and the response is that impossible actions can't be performed. That is different from rejecting a concept because believing or accepting it would violate such a law.
- BCorrect
The philosopher states what “an unnatural action” means: either a violation of nature's laws or a statistical anomaly. That term is central to the argument being criticized, because “unnatural” is supposed to carry the moral conclusion. Defining it lets the philosopher address its two possible meanings separately. B identifies a technique plainly present in the passage.
- C
Mentioning a statistical anomaly isn't reporting statistical findings. The philosopher gives no survey result, measured frequency, or other finding to support the argument. The word “statistical” appears inside a definition; C turns that into a kind of evidence the passage doesn't provide.
- D
A claim can lack a good supporting reason without contradicting itself. Here the philosopher argues that being unnatural doesn't supply the required moral reason. The passage doesn't show that the opposing claim commits someone to two incompatible positions, such as saying the same action is both morally required and not morally required in the same circumstances.
- E
There are no observations or experimental results used to choose between definitions. The philosopher states the two possible meanings and reasons about them. E says evidence supports one definition over another; the passage doesn't establish that preference or supply that evidence.
More Strategy of Argument questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strategy of Argument questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.