PrepTest 122, Section 4, Question 21
Ethicist: People who avoid alcoholic beverages simply because(55 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(10 more words not shown)
- AWhether behavior should(20 more words not shown)
- BA person should(35 more words not shown)
- CA person is(36 more words not shown)
- DThe extent to(21 more words not shown)
- EThe apportionment of(21 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Not drinking doesn't always involve resisting anything. Someone who can't afford alcohol might want a drink but lack the money. Someone who simply dislikes drinking isn't fighting a desire to drink at all.
The ethicist says neither person deserves praise for abstaining just for that reason. The exception concerns someone whose lack of desire came from hard work developing self-discipline. That person may have overcome a desire earlier, even if resisting it no longer feels difficult now.
Don't turn that into a promise to praise everyone else. Someone could afford alcohol and choose not to drink without automatically deserving praise. The ethicist identifies cases where praise isn't warranted and leaves open an exception; that is all we can say so far.
What we’re looking for
The question wants a principle supporting these judgments. I'd look for a requirement that explains why simply lacking the money or the desire isn't enough. What matters seems to be overcoming a desire one could otherwise have acted on.
Working the answers
- A
The consequences and social context of abstaining don't explain the distinctions the ethicist draws. We aren't told that the poor person's behavior has worse consequences or that the person who dislikes alcohol occupies a different social setting. The argument focuses on why people abstain and whether doing so involved self-discipline.
- B
Withholding praise isn't the same as assigning blame. The ethicist can decline to praise someone for not drinking while finding nothing blameworthy in that choice. A condition governing blame therefore doesn't establish who lacks the qualification for praise discussed here.
- CCorrect
This makes overcoming an affordable desire a requirement for praise. Someone who abstains simply because alcohol is beyond their means hasn't overcome a desire they felt able to afford. Someone who never wanted it hasn't overcome a desire either. The person who developed self-discipline could meet the condition through work done earlier, which explains why the ethicist leaves that case open. C says “only if,” so meeting the requirement doesn't automatically guarantee praise.
- D
A person's desires could affect how hard self-discipline is to acquire. But that fact alone doesn't tell us when someone should be praised. We still need a principle connecting the effort or the motivation with the judgment the ethicist makes.
- E
This matches amounts of praise and blame to how difficult people's lives are overall. The ethicist isn't measuring praise in proportion to a person's general hardships. The question is whether a particular act of abstaining deserves praise given the person's reason for it. E substitutes a broader comparison of lives for that judgment.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.