LSAT 114 – Section 2 – Question 16

LSAT 114 - Section 2 - Question 16

October 2002

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:15

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT114 S2 Q16
+LR
+Exp
Argument part +AP
Analogy +An
A
9%
162
B
2%
154
C
4%
160
D
84%
166
E
1%
159
131
144
157
 +Medium 145.502 +SubsectionMedium

Ethicist: Some would ban cloning on the grounds that clones would be subpeople, existing to indulge the vanity of their “originals.” It is not illegal, however, to use one person as a vehicle for the ambitions of another. Some people push their children to achieve in academics or athletics. You do not have to have been born in a test tube to be an extension of someone else’s ego.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Other people argue that we should ban cloning because the clones would exist to indulge the vanity of the people from whom the clones are made. The author’s implicit conclusion is that this argument’s reasoning is flawed. The author supports this conclusion by showing that in other contexts that do not involve bans, people use others for their own selfish interests. Thus, the author implies, a ban on cloning can’t be justified merely because the clones are used by the original people.

Identify Argument Part
The referenced text is support for the implicit conclusion that the other people’s argument for banning cloning is not persuasive.

A
It supports the ethicist’s view that society does not value individuality as much as many opponents of cloning think it does.
This misdescribes the author’s view. She never suggests that society doesn’t value individuality as much as opponents of cloning think it does.
B
It supports the conclusion that forcing children to pursue academic success is not objectionable.
This misdescribes the author’s conclusion. The conclusion relates to the other people’s view that cloning should be banned. The conclusion does not concern forcing children to pursue academic success.
C
It is implied by the ethicist’s conviction that clones are not subpeople.
The referenced text is not an implication of the author’s belief. It’s support for that belief.
D
It supports the ethicist’s view that vanity’s being the motivation for cloning is not enough of a reason to ban cloning.
This accurately describes the support role played by the referenced text.
E
It describes a legal position that the ethicist argues should be changed.
The author doesn’t suggests the referenced line needs to be changed. The author accepts the truth of this line and uses it undermine the other people’s view concerning a ban on cloning.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 114 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply