PrepTest 157, Section 2, Question 21
Essayist: Commitment to relationships or careers is commonly(55 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(10 more words not shown)
- AAny commitment that(15 more words not shown)
- BCommitment to a(15 more words not shown)
- CIf a commitment(9 more words not shown)
- DIf a commitment(10 more words not shown)
- EAll commitments are(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
All commitments are morally neutral? That is a much bigger claim than “some commitments don't deserve praise.”
A commitment to caring for children and a commitment to harming people don't obviously belong in one morally neutral category. The essayist even acknowledges that what someone is committed to might be good or bad. So why should commitment always receive a neutral evaluation?
The example doesn't get us there. Staying in a relationship that benefits nobody might deserve no praise. But that tells us about that kind of commitment. It's like saying nobody will go to law school because your friend doesn't want to go. One person's case doesn't establish a conclusion about everyone. Likewise, evidence that some commitments have outlived their purpose doesn't settle the status of every commitment.
What we’re looking for
We're asked for a principle that helps justify the essayist's reasoning. That means we need something powerful enough to make the jump from some to all: a rule allowing the existence of an unpraiseworthy commitment to establish that every commitment is morally neutral. It may be a strange rule to accept, but if the question tells us to assume it, we can test whether it gets the essayist to the conclusion.
Working the answers
- A
This starts with a commitment already known to be morally neutral and tells us something else about it. We need to establish moral neutrality in the first place, and for all commitments. A doesn't let us start with an unpraiseworthy commitment and reach that universal conclusion.
- B
This allows a commitment to be virtuous when the relationship or career is good. That isn't the essayist's claim that all commitments are morally neutral. Rather than showing why every commitment belongs in the neutral category, B gives some commitments a basis for being virtuous.
- C
This would make an unpraiseworthy commitment morally neutral. But what about the other commitments? The evidence doesn't show that every commitment deserves no praise. C could therefore establish neutrality for the example while leaving the universal conclusion unsupported. Watch the difference between fixing the example and fixing the argument about all cases.
- D
This tells us that commitments that outlive their original justification cannot be virtuous. The passage says that happens often, not always. D therefore doesn't reach every commitment. It also doesn't establish moral neutrality: a commitment that isn't virtuous might be bad rather than neutral.
- ECorrect
This makes the existence of any commitment undeserving of praise enough to establish that all commitments are morally neutral. The essayist gives us just such a case: a relationship commitment that benefits nobody involved and deserves no praise. That satisfies E's condition, which then supplies the full conclusion about all commitments. Unlike C and D, E explicitly carries us from the limited evidence to the universal claim.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.