PrepTest 155, Section 2, Question 16
Philosopher: Groups are not the type of entity(47 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(19 more words not shown)
- AIt is an(11 more words not shown)
- BIt is offered(19 more words not shown)
- CIt is cited(11 more words not shown)
- DIt is cited(11 more words not shown)
- EIt is the(6 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
I can imagine praising a family or blaming a nation. Why does the philosopher say we can't?
The answer depends on the philosopher's requirements for blame: conscience and agency. Nations are said to lack conscience, and families are said to lack agency. We might want to argue that groups are made up of people who have those qualities. But for this role question, we need to understand how the philosopher uses the claims, rather than substitute our own views about groups.
The claim about nations is a starting reason. Combined with the requirement of conscience, it supports the first sentence: groups aren't the kind of thing that can deserve praise or blame. The first sentence then supports the final recommendation: translate claims about groups into claims about individuals so we can evaluate them properly.
That gives us two steps. The claim about nations supports a conclusion about groups; that conclusion about groups supports the conclusion about translation. The middle claim is an intermediate conclusion because it both receives support and supplies support.
What we’re looking for
We could still question whether even a mistaken statement must be translated before we can evaluate it. But we don't need to settle that objection to answer the question. We're identifying where the statement about nations sits in the philosopher's reasoning.
Working the answers
- A
The statement about nations isn't itself supported by anything in the argument. It is asserted as a reason for the broader claim about groups. An intermediate conclusion must be something the author gives a reason to believe, then uses to support something further. The first sentence has that role; the statement we were asked about doesn't.
- BCorrect
Nations lacking conscience helps support the intermediate conclusion that groups cannot deserve praise or blame. That intermediate conclusion, in turn, directly supports the main conclusion that statements assigning praise or blame to groups must be translated into statements about individuals. B describes both links.
- C
This puts the direction of support backward. The philosopher doesn't first establish the need for translation and infer from it that nations have no conscience. The claim about nations is part of the reasoning leading toward the need for translation.
- D
This is a reason for the general conclusion about groups, not an example of that conclusion. An example would be a claim that a particular nation cannot deserve blame. The statement we are asked about instead says nations lack conscience, which helps explain why the philosopher thinks they cannot deserve blame. It supports the conclusion rather than simply illustrating it.
- E
The final conclusion concerns translating praise and blame into claims about individuals. The philosopher brings up nations' lack of conscience to help reach that conclusion. It is part of the support, not the destination.
More Role/Main Point questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Role/Main Point questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.