PrepTest 130, Section 1, Question 26
Philosopher: Wolves do not tolerate an attack by(47 more words not shown)
The philosopher's argument proceeds by(2 more words not shown)
- Aprovide counterexamples to(10 more words not shown)
- Bestablish inductively that(7 more words not shown)
- Ccast doubt on(16 more words not shown)
- Destablish a claim(12 more words not shown)
- Eprovide evidence suggesting(10 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A wolf bares its throat to show submission, rather like tapping out in a contest. The passage says wolves won't tolerate continued attack on the submitting animal, and that foxes and domesticated dogs behave similarly.
The philosopher treats that behavior as evidence of obeying a moral rule. Is it a moral rule, or could the behavior have some other explanation? That's a reasonable point to question. But the stem asks what the argument is attempting to do, so we can describe the strategy without deciding that the examples conclusively establish morality.
What we’re looking for
Keep the opposing argument separate from the philosopher's response. The opposing view denies animals rights on the basis that only humans can obey moral rules. The philosopher offers the animal behavior to challenge that humans-only premise. The aim is to remove this particular reason for denying rights; it isn't to settle every possible argument about animal rights.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
The counterexamples are the wolves, foxes, and dogs apparently following a rule about submission. The premise they are meant to refute is that only humans can obey moral rules. The conclusion based on that premise is the denial that animals have rights. By challenging the premise with these examples, the philosopher challenges that stated basis for the conclusion. The choice describes the attempt even if we remain uncertain whether the behavior counts as moral rule-following.
- B
The philosopher doesn't generalize from these examples to morality in every animal. Nothing here establishes the behavior of ants, for instance. Nor does the conclusion say all animals possess morality; it rejects a particular reason for denying animal rights.
- C
This challenges a different part of the opposing argument. C would question whether obeying moral rules is required for having rights. The philosopher instead challenges the claim that animals cannot obey those rules. A requirement and the claim that a group fails it are distinct; the examples address the latter.
- D
The philosopher doesn't assume the denial of a claim and derive a logical contradiction. The support consists of reported animal behavior offered against a general premise. That is the counterexample strategy described in A, rather than a demonstration that a denial contradicts itself.
- E
If anything, the examples suggest that restricting moral rule-following to humans is too narrow. They don't suggest that morality is being applied too broadly. The philosopher is asking us to consider animal behavior as a possible instance, not to exclude an overextended use of the concept.
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.