PrepTest 128, Section 2, Question 16
Laurel: Modern moral theories must be jettisoned, or(61 more words not shown)
Laurel's and Miriam's statements provide(11 more words not shown)
- Ait is preferable(16 more words not shown)
- Bpeople abandoned earlier(13 more words not shown)
- Ca moral theory's(11 more words not shown)
- Djust as people(17 more words not shown)
- Ea moral theory(17 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Laurel wants to discard modern moral theories or substantially revise them. 'Jettisoned' means thrown out. That is a strong response to their failure to guide us in extreme situations.
Could a theory still be worth keeping despite that limitation? We might ask whether another theory does better. A scientific theory could explain many things while leaving some questions unanswered; those unanswered questions alone wouldn't erase everything the theory helps us understand.
Miriam makes a similar point with an overcoat. A coat needn't be useful in every possible situation to be useful in many ordinary ones. She says usefulness across a wide variety of common circumstances is enough for a moral theory.
What we’re looking for
So the disagreement concerns the standard for adequacy. Laurel treats guidance in extreme cases as a requirement. Miriam says a theory can meet our needs without satisfying that requirement. For each answer, we need both speakers to take a position and those positions to conflict.
Working the answers
- A
Preferable is different from adequate. Miriam might prefer a theory that handles every moral dilemma while still accepting one that handles a wide variety of ordinary cases. Saying an imperfect theory is enough doesn't mean a more comprehensive one wouldn't be better. We don't have opposing positions on that preference.
- B
Neither speaker tells us why people historically abandoned earlier theories. Laurel recommends discarding or revising theories now; that isn't an account of what people did in the past. Miriam also makes no historical claim.
- CCorrect
Laurel says failure in extreme cases requires abandoning or greatly reworking a moral theory, so the theory's adequacy depends on handling those cases. Miriam says usefulness in common circumstances is all we need, so handling the extreme cases is not required. They give opposing answers to this exact question.
- D
Miriam's coat comparison illustrates that one useful thing needn't work in every situation. It doesn't assert that people need a collection of different moral theories for different occasions. Laurel also says nothing about that proposed arrangement. Sharing the word 'overcoats' doesn't make D the disagreement.
- E
This concerns whether a theory designed around extreme cases would work in ordinary cases. The exchange concerns whether failure in extreme cases makes existing moral theories inadequate. Neither speaker predicts the ordinary usefulness of a theory developed specifically for extremes.
More Disagreement questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Disagreement questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.