PrepTest 123, Section 3, Question 24
Sociologist: Romantics who claim that people are not(36 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(11 more words not shown)
- APeople acting together(13 more words not shown)
- BInstitutions formed by(4 more words not shown)
- CPeople should not(10 more words not shown)
- DA society's institutions(8 more words not shown)
- EThe whole does(10 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
How does being made of people stop an institution from making people worse?
Imagine a child sent to a cruel orphanage. The adults mistreat the child, and the child learns to be cruel to others. Saying the orphanage is a collection of people doesn't rule out that story. The child didn't create the institution or choose how it would work. Other people were already there and could influence the child.
That's why I don't accept the sociologist's response to the people called “romantics.” They think imperfect institutions can make people evil. The sociologist says that can't be right because institutions are merely collections of people. But a collection of people can include some people affecting others. We need a reason that can't happen in the way the romantics describe.
The question asks us to help the sociologist. So now I need to support an argument I was just challenging. What would let “the institution is made of people” count against “the institution makes people evil”? We'd need a rule about what a collection can determine about its members.
What we’re looking for
I don't have a polished sentence for the answer yet. That's okay. I know where the connection is missing. I'll test the principles against the orphanage example: does this rule help show that the institution can't determine whether the child in it becomes evil?
Working the answers
- A
How much good or evil people can accomplish together doesn't tell us whether the institution changes the people themselves. The orphanage could do more harm than one adult acting alone and also influence a child's character. A concerns the scale of collective action, not the claimed effect on individual members.
- B
Even if every institution is imperfect, the question remains: can that imperfection make someone evil? Both sides could accept that imperfect institutions exist. B doesn't connect that fact to the sociologist's rejection of their influence on people.
- C
Being less optimistic about people isn't an explanation of why they become evil. Someone with a pessimistic view of human behavior could still blame harmful institutions. The sociologist needs support for a claim about that relationship, not a recommendation about our general attitude toward humanity.
- D
A “gauge” is a measure. Institutions might be a good way to measure a society's values, but that doesn't tell us whether they influence an individual's character. We could learn something about a society from its institutions and still think those institutions make some people worse.
- ECorrect
Put the concrete example into the abstract sentence. The “whole” is the orphanage—the institution. The “things that compose it” are the individual people, including the child. The relevant “property” is being evil.
Now the rule says the institution does not determine whether the individual has that property. That supports the sociologist's claim that the institution doesn't make the person evil. It gives the sociologist the missing reason to use the collection-of-people fact against the romantics' account.
We don't have to believe this principle describes the real world. The question asks what would help if the principle were valid. E addresses the precise relationship the argument needs; the other choices talk about collective achievements, imperfection, attitudes, or social values without supplying that connection.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.