PrepTest 126, Section 1, Question 14
Eighteenth-century moralist: You should never make an effort(45 more words not shown)
The moralist's reasoning is most(9 more words not shown)
- Adraws a conclusion(11 more words not shown)
- Btakes for granted(11 more words not shown)
- Cuses the inherently(10 more words not shown)
- Dmistakes a cause(13 more words not shown)
- Erejects trying to(17 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What if you try the caviar and love it?
The moralist lists reasons you might not want an expensive new taste. It could drain your money. You might dislike the sensations involved in acquiring it—perhaps your first taste of caviar seems unpleasant. And learning to enjoy something takes effort. Those are costs worth considering.
But the recommendation is never to try. What about someone who can easily afford the expense and finds the experience enjoyable? Developing an interest in watches or an expensive food could bring that person satisfaction. We don't have to share the taste to recognize that possibility.
What we’re looking for
Calling the taste superfluous—unnecessary—doesn't settle the question either. Something can be unnecessary for survival and still be worth enjoying. The flaw question points us to what the argument leaves out: benefits. The moralist weighs the expense and effort without asking what someone might gain in return.
Working the answers
- A
The conclusion recommends against acquiring expensive tastes. The support concerns money, unpleasant experiences, and effort. Those are distinct claims, not merely the recommendation repeated as its own reason. We can challenge whether they justify the conclusion without pretending they say the same thing.
- B
An expense isn't automatically financial irresponsibility. Someone could spend money on an expensive taste while staying comfortably within a budget. The moralist objects to the drain on one's purse but doesn't need to assume that it will lead to reckless finances. The more direct problem is ignoring what the expense might buy.
- C
The reasoning doesn't depend on an unclear meaning of “sensations.” Tastes, smells, and other experiences could be unpleasant; we can understand that concern perfectly well. The argument would still overlook potential enjoyment even if the author gave us a precise definition.
- D
The author describes drawbacks of acquiring expensive tastes. There's no switch in which something first causes the acquisition and is then treated as its effect. This choice names a different mistake and doesn't capture the missing consideration here.
- ECorrect
The goal is acquiring a new taste, and the moralist rejects pursuing it because of its cost, effort, and possible unpleasantness. But achieving it might also bring enjoyment or fulfillment. Without considering those benefits, the argument hasn't justified a blanket recommendation never to try.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.