Side question: This argument is flawed, right? Evan states that his vegetarianism is based on the belief that it is immoral to inflict pain on animals for food. Then, he accuses vegetarians of moral inconsistency for consuming seafood, reasoning that if their rationale for vegetarianism was to avoid the moral wrong of inflicting needless suffering on other animals, then they should not exclude sea animals.
He expands his definition of pain to include needless suffering, and doesn't actually address the question of whether or not sea animals can experience pain.
For this question specifically, it helped me to summarize the overall principle of the stimulus in a couple of words and then to compare that summary to the answer choices to see which of the answer choices matches my summary the best. I summarized the stimulus by saying something like "if I am uncertain, then I should do the extra step just in case" and that led me to question A. This technique may help with the more "principle" based flaw questions.
Would the principle that Evan critiqued not be ONLY the lack of evidence = no evidence part of the stim? Why is Evans's response to be on the side of caution also in the answer choices if that is his response to the principle, not the principle in and of itself?
This whole question kind of reminded me of the argument form of Pascal's Wager, a philosophical argument/thought experiment. It's similar but not identical in form to this vegetarian argument.
The principle I got out of this (and from Pascal's Wager) is something like this: You should ere on the side of of caution about things that you can't fully know. Doing so would reduce the [potential and unknown] harm that your actions--based on your beliefs--cause.
9 minutes of prompt analysis only to be immediately told the answer and not be given a chance to apply what we learned. This is by far one of the worst aspects of 7Sage.
JY always makes me laughed. With the take time and tell me why "D" is not the right answer. Ok, it is not even an argument. Haha definitely helps make learning fun! Small laughs that stick.
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
20 comments
Side question: This argument is flawed, right? Evan states that his vegetarianism is based on the belief that it is immoral to inflict pain on animals for food. Then, he accuses vegetarians of moral inconsistency for consuming seafood, reasoning that if their rationale for vegetarianism was to avoid the moral wrong of inflicting needless suffering on other animals, then they should not exclude sea animals.
He expands his definition of pain to include needless suffering, and doesn't actually address the question of whether or not sea animals can experience pain.
For this question specifically, it helped me to summarize the overall principle of the stimulus in a couple of words and then to compare that summary to the answer choices to see which of the answer choices matches my summary the best. I summarized the stimulus by saying something like "if I am uncertain, then I should do the extra step just in case" and that led me to question A. This technique may help with the more "principle" based flaw questions.
Me, a pescetarian, thinking I was reading this stimulus, but really, the stimulus read me...
Would the principle that Evan critiqued not be ONLY the lack of evidence = no evidence part of the stim? Why is Evans's response to be on the side of caution also in the answer choices if that is his response to the principle, not the principle in and of itself?
This whole question kind of reminded me of the argument form of Pascal's Wager, a philosophical argument/thought experiment. It's similar but not identical in form to this vegetarian argument.
The principle I got out of this (and from Pascal's Wager) is something like this: You should ere on the side of of caution about things that you can't fully know. Doing so would reduce the [potential and unknown] harm that your actions--based on your beliefs--cause.
3:06 very specific, very detailed, very mindful, very cutesy, very demure
These analogy questions are probably the toughest ones I think.
#help in the new version which I was reccomended to do, there is no principle section?
Is another shallow dip reason to get rid of E that there was no uncertainty in the reasoning?
9 minutes of prompt analysis only to be immediately told the answer and not be given a chance to apply what we learned. This is by far one of the worst aspects of 7Sage.
“It’s okay to eat fish cuz they don’t have any feelings."
Nirvana.
I too, am locked in, so to speak.
JY always makes me laughed. With the take time and tell me why "D" is not the right answer. Ok, it is not even an argument. Haha definitely helps make learning fun! Small laughs that stick.
2:14 amogus