PrepTest 142, Section 2, Question 24
Historian: It is unlikely that someone would see(56 more words not shown)
The conclusion of the argument(11 more words not shown)
- AHistorical events that(14 more words not shown)
- BThe less inclined(20 more words not shown)
- COnly those who(11 more words not shown)
- DThe more clear(20 more words not shown)
- EPeople tend to(24 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Having clear moral beliefs isn't the same as being eager to judge other people.
Someone could strongly believe that cruelty is wrong while becoming more cautious about judging people from another historical period. Learning about their circumstances might make that person hesitate before condemning them, without erasing the person's underlying moral belief. That's a possible distinction the argument hasn't addressed.
The historian gives us two separate connections. More historical knowledge means less inclination to judge human behavior. Clear moral beliefs, meanwhile, are important to viewing history as the working out of moral themes: without such beliefs, that view is unlikely.
What we’re looking for
How do we get from the first connection to the second? We need less inclination to judge to make clear moral beliefs less likely. Then increasing historical knowledge could lead through that missing step to the claimed decline in a moral interpretation of history. That's the bridge to look for in this sufficient-assumption question.
Working the answers
- A
This concerns whether particular events elicit moral disapproval and exemplify a moral theme. The conclusion concerns a person's broad view of history as knowledge increases. A doesn't connect reduced inclination to judge people with reduced likelihood of holding clear moral beliefs. It also focuses on disapproval, although a moral assessment needn't be negative.
- BCorrect
More historical knowledge leads to less inclination to judge human behavior. B adds that less inclination to judge makes clear, unambiguous moral beliefs less likely. The opening premise then connects the absence of those beliefs with being unlikely to view history as the working out of moral themes.
We can now follow the intended chain in one direction: more knowledge, less judgment, less likelihood of clear moral beliefs, and less likelihood of the moral view of history. B links the two ideas the original treated as though they were already connected. It doesn't require saying that knowledgeable people have no moral beliefs at all.
- C
Attributing moral significance to some historical events is different from viewing history as a whole as the working out of moral themes. Someone might think one massacre was morally significant without holding that broad view. C also draws a line between understanding and not understanding history; it doesn't establish the conclusion's gradual relationship between more knowledge and less likelihood of the view.
- D
This connects clearer moral beliefs with a greater likelihood of the moral view of history. But the missing starting link remains: why would learning more history make those clear beliefs less likely? D never mentions the inclination to judge, which is the effect of greater knowledge that the argument actually gives us.
- E
Objectivity isn't the missing idea. The argument concerns knowledge, moral judgment, moral beliefs, and a particular view of history. Becoming less objective with greater knowledge doesn't tell us how those stated ideas connect, so E cannot complete the reasoning.
More Sufficient Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Sufficient Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.