Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 33.4K All Categories
- 28.1K LSAT
- 17.1K General
- 5.2K Logical Reasoning
- 1.4K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 70 Podcasts
- 191 Webinars
- 10 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.2K Study Groups
- 111 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 31 November 2024 LSAT
- 18 October 2024 LSAT
- 9 September 2024 LSAT
- 38 August 2024 LSAT
- 28 June 2024 LSAT
- 4 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 22 January 2024 LSAT
- 38 November 2023 LSAT
- 43 October 2023 LSAT
- 14 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 5K Not LSAT
- 4K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 636 Technical Problems
- 286 Off-topic
PT B. S1. Q21 - Two doctrines have been greatly
legalstateofmind
Alum Member
Hi all - I'd really appreciate your help on understanding the argument in this question.
I get the gap in this question is that just because first doctrine states that "all historical events must be explained in economic factors" doesn't mean that historical events are explained only in economic factors.. that's why A is the correct answer for this question.
However, explanations in other forums state that second doctrine is rightly mistaken because it's apparently stating that all historical events are explained by psychological factors and psychological factors only. But I don't really understand how this is inferred from the statement in the stim - "The second doctrine attempts to account psychologically for all historical events." Does "attempts to account psychologically for all historical events" infer that historical events are accounted only through psychologically?
Comments
Hello,
As far as I'm concerned, the stimulus doesn't state that the second doctrine only takes into account psychological perspectives, just that it primarily focuses on it. It definitely appears to be open-ended like the first doctrine is. If possible, could you provide a link to those forms so I can see the explanations that these people provide? I don't agree with them based on what you're saying, and I want to see if I can properly address their explanations.
@SSBM1000 thanks for replying!
Here’s the link to the discussion:
https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/forums/q21-two-doctrines-have-been-greatly-t2249.html
I was mainly confused by ManhattanPrepLSAT1’s explanation.
Hello,
Thank you for the link, and after reading it, I still stand by my initial opinion that the stimulus doesn't say that the second doctrine precludes non-psychological factors. The instructor notes that the stimulus says that the second doctrine does try to account psychologically for all historical events, but I think that just means it primarily focuses on it, or at least includes psychology as an element in its explanation, and it doesn't mean that it excludes all other factors. I don't think the wording allows us to make that assumption it excludes all other factors. That's my take at least, and if anyone else wants to take a look and give their opinion, I would definitely be interested in hearing it, as I think this is definitely an interesting question.
@SSBM1000 Thank you for your thoughts! That's how I understood the stimulus as well and I don't think we need to understand it other way to answer this question correctly. I just wanted to make sure that if I was totally off on understanding this argument. good to know I wasn't. If anyone feels other way, please comment below!