PT56.S2.Q17 - personal right society's welfare

Peter

How I read the stimulus was: say we let Q be the statement "create virtuous people"

Glen: I believe Q is most important because P (an alternative) is not desirable
Sara: But Q is more dangerous than P

I can't seem to get past why answer choice C is wrong. Glen's closing sentence states he endorses law's primary role to create virtuous citizens implying there is negligible danger in making Q the most important. On the other hand Sara counters by saying this is more dangerous than being overprotective of individual rights, thereby implying she believes there is an inherent danger in the government deciding what constitutes virtuous behavior. Wouldn't this point be something they directly disagree about?

So E summarizes Glen's argument, but Sara simply disagrees by stating Q is more dangerous than an alternative and seems to imply Q may not be the most important. But I feel that the level of interpolation to go from Sara's argument (Q being more dangerous) to Sara believing Q is not the most important is the same as that for C.
http://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-56-section-2-question-17/

J.Y. Ping

Hey Peter, you're right to see that there's some "interpolation" going on in both (C) and (E). It's a very subtle observation. I use a different word - assumption - to get at the same idea. It tends to be that for many of the harder questions, the LSAT asks you to decide on the reasonableness of assumptions.

P: law's primary role is to create virtuous people
P': government deciding what constitutes virtue
Q: law/government being overprotective of individuals' rights

You give a fine analysis for (E) and its attending assumption. Sarah first points out to Glen that P --> P'. Then, Sarah asserts P' carries a danger factor of 9 "severe" and Q carries a danger factor of 3 "mild". Then she stops talking. The unspoken conclusion we are supposed to draw for ourselves (and to get the right answer choice) is that we should choose Q. Of course, to draw that conclusion, we need to make the assumption that (we and) Sarah want the government/law to carry a lower danger factor. How reasonable do you think that assumption is? Say, "kind of reasonable"? Okay, now we have to decide how reasonable the assumption that (C) invites us to make is. Then, we compare.

Glen asserts P. He stops talking. First, we need to assume that Glen agrees with Sarah that P --> P'. That's a huge assumption, enough to kill (C) as the correct answer choice. But, as the LSAT often likes to do, it layers in other less unreasonable assumptions. Let's concede that Glen agrees with Sarah that P --> P'.

Glen asserts P (--> P'). He stops talking. From that assertion, we could draw the conclusion that P' carries a danger factor of 0 or very close to 0. But, we would have to make the assumption that X being the primary role of law means that X's danger factor is 0 or very close to 0. That also seems a little unreasonable. Why could it not be that amongst the candidates that the law has to choose to be its primary role, every candidate (including P and Q) carries danger factors greater than 2? Perhaps Glen believes that the arbitrary danger factors I assigned to Q and P' are flipped. Can we tell that's not the case from Glen's statements?

For those who have access, video explanation here: 7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-56-section-2-question-17

Peter

Wow! Thanks for such a detailed response. I didn't expect it given you've already made a video. That was really helpful. I realize now I subtly made the assumption P-->P' for Glen and couldn't break from it. I guess it also comes down to the fact "inherent danger" implies >0 rather than "more than reasonable".

J.Y. Ping

You're welcome! Keep asking the tough questions.