PT B. S1. Q21 - Two doctrines have been greatly

legalstateofmindlegalstateofmind Alum Member
in Logical Reasoning 101 karma

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

  • SSBM1000SSBM1000 Member
    614 karma

    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.

  • legalstateofmindlegalstateofmind Alum Member
    edited August 2020 101 karma

    @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.

  • SSBM1000SSBM1000 Member
    614 karma

    @legalstateofmind said:
    @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.

  • legalstateofmindlegalstateofmind Alum Member
    101 karma

    @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!

Sign In or Register to comment.