this is kinda a necessary assumption question, in that the author's argument completely falls apart if "acting morally" does not mean "acting in the best interests of the public"
I had some trouble with this question. I understand why E is incorrect, however I was not very attracted to answer choice A because it discusses what is morally right. I felt as though the passage really only focused on what is considered morally right, and the things that make an action morally wrong may not be the same as what makes actions morally right. I really felt like morally right and morally wrong are two separate concepts, and not just opposites of each other. And more generally, I guess it is confusing when to think of two concepts of being related but separate, and when we can say they are true opposites.
Sorry if this was confusing, but if anyone has any clarity that would be a huge help.
So for E, when I saw "Unless it harms others" this actually would pose another question in our minds, "what does this LSAT writer mean by harm?" Physically or emotionally? I automatically thought if someone stole $100 from their relative without them knowing, then they were not physically harmed but were financially and emotionally harmed when they realized they were missing money and who did it. I immediately thought no to E as this would lead to more questions on what the writer means in the answer choice.
Curriculum is great, but just going to echo what I have been seeing: give us more You Try's and let us see the passage up front, as well as the questions and answer choices. It helps with engagement
11
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
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.
23 comments
this is kinda a necessary assumption question, in that the author's argument completely falls apart if "acting morally" does not mean "acting in the best interests of the public"
Anyone else see this logical error in the explanation for A?
What makes actions morally right is their contribution to the public good.
Morally right -> Contributes to public good
/Contributes to public good -> /Morally right
The explanation, however, says:
Contributes to public good -> morally right
/contributes to public good -> /morally right
Did JY make the oldest mistake in the book or am I just tripping.
I am doing really good... I am scared that this is just the calm before the storm
are conditional answers generally wrong in implied questions?
im worried im only doing well on these because he's helping me do the low res
Is it safe to completely rule out A.C's that are explicitly stated in the passage?
is "because" typically always a sufficient condition indicator in a conditional statement?
I had some trouble with this question. I understand why E is incorrect, however I was not very attracted to answer choice A because it discusses what is morally right. I felt as though the passage really only focused on what is considered morally right, and the things that make an action morally wrong may not be the same as what makes actions morally right. I really felt like morally right and morally wrong are two separate concepts, and not just opposites of each other. And more generally, I guess it is confusing when to think of two concepts of being related but separate, and when we can say they are true opposites.
Sorry if this was confusing, but if anyone has any clarity that would be a huge help.
What is the LR analog to Principle or Generalization questions? PSA?
4:38 hehe........bEtTeR
So for E, when I saw "Unless it harms others" this actually would pose another question in our minds, "what does this LSAT writer mean by harm?" Physically or emotionally? I automatically thought if someone stole $100 from their relative without them knowing, then they were not physically harmed but were financially and emotionally harmed when they realized they were missing money and who did it. I immediately thought no to E as this would lead to more questions on what the writer means in the answer choice.
Curriculum is great, but just going to echo what I have been seeing: give us more You Try's and let us see the passage up front, as well as the questions and answer choices. It helps with engagement