Self-study
Philosopher: It has been argued that because particular moral codes differ between cultures, morality must be entirely a product of culture and cannot be grounded in some universal human nature. This argument is flawed. Research suggests that certain moral attitudes, such as disapproval of unfairness and cruelty, are shared across all cultures. And just as certain universal tastes like sweetness and saltiness can, in different cultural contexts, provide the basis for many different cuisines, _______.
8.
Which one of the following most logically completes the argument?
a
moral codes tend to be based in the specific contexts in which they arise
This would be a plausible answer in an MSS question – based on the stimulus and even the food analogy, moral codes do indeed differ based on context.
But this isn’t a MSS question – we don’t just need our answer to be a true thing, we need it to complete the Philosopher’s analogy in a way that establishes a universal foundation for various moral codes.
b
the moral codes of most cultures resemble each other in many respects
(B) really emphasizes the (ish) from when I described this as a Strengthen(ish) question earlier. If the author is on team “morality is universal,” any information that pushes in the direction of moral consensus between cultures is arguably helpful. If there’s tons of overlap between various cultures’ moral codes, maybe morality is based on something deeper after all.
But this isn’t really a Strengthen question. We’re not just looking for helpful stuff, we’re looking for something that rounds out the analogy.
An analogy set up to match (B) would look like this:
The cuisines of most cultures resemble each other in many respects, which means deliciousness is probably rooted in something deeper. So too with morality…
c
a variety of moral codes can be based in shared moral attitudes
This matches our anticipation perfectly. The analysis section below the stimulus is basically the explanation for (C).
But maybe you got tripped up by the sentence structure – the difference between “
The short lesson here is just that the English language allows us to swap around the order of concepts in a sentence while retaining the same meaning. Here’s an example:
I have determined that you have awful fashion sense based on the horrific Hawaiian shirt you’re wearing.
The horrific Hawaiian shirt you’re wearing provides the basis for my determination that you have awful fashion sense.
Same meaning, different wording.
d
it is possible to understand the basis of the moral codes of different cultures
(D) is too weak / vague to fit into the blank. The analogy can’t just show that it’s possible to understand what morality’s basis is – it needs to show that the basis is in universal moral attitudes.
Like maybe it’s possible to understand the basis of different moral codes, and that basis is cultural difference and nothing deeper.
e
moral attitudes can be adapted to suit the moral codes of many different cultures
(E) is statistically the most tempting wrong answer choice, which is pretty understandable – its wrongness really just comes down to the strict meaning of the word “adapt,” which involves change.
If (E) said “moral attitudes can be [interpreted differently or built upon in various ways] to suit the moral codes of many different cultures,” it would be right. That version of (E) paints a picture in which universal moral attitudes provide a shared foundation for many different moral codes.
But (E) says moral attitudes can be adapted, which means they can be changed based on different cultural needs. That’s no good – our universal moral attitudes stay the same.
This meaning of adapt might be easier to see in the food analogy. We’re not adapting sweetness or saltiness – those fundamental aspects of flavor don’t ever change, they’re just interpreted or built upon in different ways by different cultures.