PrepTest 134, Section 1, Question 23
Ethicist: Marital vows often contain the promise to(56 more words not shown)
The ethicist's conclusion follows logically(8 more words not shown)
- ANone of our(5 more words not shown)
- BPeople should not(11 more words not shown)
- C"Love" can legitimately(9 more words not shown)
- DPromises should not(11 more words not shown)
- EPromises that cannot(7 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Can you promise a feeling that you can't control? The ethicist says that promise makes no sense.
Let's follow the claim on its own terms. If “love” in the vow means a feeling, and feelings aren't under our control, then the vow promises something outside our control. The ethicist also says such a promise makes no sense. Those premises explain why that interpretation would be nonsensical.
But the conclusion tells us how we should interpret the vow. That's another step. The argument needs a rule connecting “this interpretation makes the promise nonsensical” with “people should not interpret it that way.” We could otherwise agree that an interpretation produces nonsense without agreeing that everyone ought to reject it.
What we’re looking for
To make the conclusion follow, connect those ideas. We don't first need to prove that love actually is a feeling. The argument considers what happens under that interpretation and wants to rule out using it.
Working the answers
- A
This repeats information we already have: feelings aren't within our control. That helps explain why promising a feeling makes no sense under the ethicist's premises. It still doesn't tell us how people should interpret the words of a promise. The conclusion needs that further judgment.
- B
This concerns whether to make a promise, not how to interpret one. Someone could agree that people shouldn't promise things outside their control and still think a particular vow does make such a promise. B might criticize making the vow under that interpretation; it doesn't require abandoning the interpretation.
- C
An alternative interpretation being legitimate doesn't establish that the feeling interpretation should be rejected. Love might be interpreted as a commitment, for example, but merely having another possible meaning doesn't make the first one forbidden. C is compatible with the conclusion, yet too weak to establish the instruction the ethicist gives.
- DCorrect
Promises should not be interpreted in a way that makes them nonsensical. The premises establish that interpreting love as a feeling would make this promise nonsensical. Apply D, and we get the conclusion: no one should interpret love in the vow that way.
The conditional wording is enough. We aren't claiming love must be a feeling; we're identifying the consequence of that interpretation and supplying a rule telling us to avoid interpretations with that consequence. That is the missing link between the reasoning about control and the recommendation about meaning.
- E
This gives another rule about when promises make no sense. Even if it applies, it stops at the same place as the existing premises: calling a promise nonsensical. We still need the rule that tells people not to interpret it that way. E doesn't reach the conclusion's “should.”
More Sufficient Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Sufficient Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.