PT34.S3.Q20 -Political utility determine..

LSAT dingusLSAT dingus Core Member
edited July 2022 in Logical Reasoning 23 karma

https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-34-section-3-question-20/

Hi,

I understand why A is correct, but I'm having a hard time interpreting the argument itself. From my understanding the author's argument in the stimulus is as follows:

P1: Political utility determines the popularity of a metaphor
P2: "Society as body governed by head" metaphor is pervasive
C: Thus, "Society as body governed by head" metaphor promotes greater acceptance of authoritarian regime than society as family metaphor

Doesn't the argument confuse necessary for sufficient here? In other words, the argument determines that the"Society as body governed by head" metaphor is politically useful from the fact that it is pervasive (P -> PU), but P1 says the opposite of this (PU -> P).

Am I wrong for thinking that the argument is flawed to begin with? Would really appreciate some feedback. Thanks!

Show Related Discussions

Comments

  • insomuchpaininsomuchpain Core Member
    17 karma

    Hi,

    I'll try my best at explaining from my understanding!

    I think you're conflating "popularity" with "pervasive."

    P1: Political Utility --> determines POPULARITY
    P2: "Society as governed by head" is PERVASIVE

    Just because something is pervasive doesn't mean that something is popular. So the argument is not confusing necessary for sufficient because it never said that "Society as body governed by head" metaphor was popular--just that it was pervasive.

    One flaw the argument commits is that it assumes that just because "Society as body governed by head" metaphor is pervasive (premise), it has to promote greater acceptance of authoritarian repression than other metaphors, like likening society to a family (conclusion). It makes the jump from pervasive to all of a sudden promoting greater acceptance of authoritarian repression.

    The other thing the argument assumes is that other metaphors, such as likening society to a family, are not also pervasive. If the family metaphor was pervasive, then the critic's premise is irrelevant to the conclusion now. AC A flushes out this assumption.

    If this were a necessary assumption question, then the answer would be something like "likening society to a family metaphor is not as pervasive as the society as governed by head metaphor"

    I hope that helps!

  • ryan.lattavoryan.lattavo Alum Member Sage 7Sage Tutor
    109 karma

    LSAT Dingus,

    I think "determines" here functions more as an if and only if than you're believing it does.

    Consider this analogy: the speed limit determines the speed of my car on the highway. Therefore, if I am going 70 MPH on the highway, the speed limit must be 70 MPH. If the speed limit is 70MPH, I must be going 70MPH on the highway.

    The same is true for this premises. If political utility determines popularity (which I think is okay to equate with 'pervasiveness'), then metaphors that are popular MUST be politically useful.

    Hope this helped!

Sign In or Register to comment.