Comments

• 1 Like

  KevinLin7Sage Member

  September 5 edited September 5 212 karma

  I understand where you're coming from. I think the LSAT would say that the author's intention in bringing up the psychological explanation is that it's an example of a non-economic explanation. Notice that in your own interpretation of the question, you're already generalizing from the idea of events caused by early childhood experiences to events involving a psychological explanation. Why didn't you think the assumption was even more narrow -- that the argument only had to assume that the first doctrine precluded explanations based on early childhood experiences (rather than all psychological explanations)? If you understand why you didn't think the assumption had to be that narrow, I think a similar framework can help you understand why the assumption isn't just narrowly tailored to "precludes psychological explanations."

  Another answer is that the assumption technically isn't about economic explanations and psychological explanations being mutually exclusive. The assumption is about how we should interpret the first doctrine. Consider these two examples:

  1:

  Doctrine X believes historical events must appeal to economic factors. However, they're wrong. We know some events appeal to psychological factors.

  ---

  2:

  Doctrine X believes historical events must appeal to economic factors. However, they're wrong. We know some events appeal to BOTH economic and psychological factors.

  ---

  Do you see a subtle difference between the two? In #1, the author interprets Doctrine X accurately, and is trying to show that the doctrine is wrong by providing an example of an event that does NOT need to appeal to economic factors. Under this interpretation, #1 is assuming that if an event appeals to psych factors, it cannot appeal to econ factors. Here, I'd agree that we should be careful about extending this assumption beyond psychological factors.

  But in #2, the author isn't trying to disprove Doctrine X by providing an example of an event that does NOT need to appeal to economic factors. After all, the author's own premise involves an appeal economic factors. So why then does the author think the premise about events involving economic and psychological factors disproves Doctrine X? Because the author misinterprets the Doctrine X as saying events must appeal only to economic factors. With that misinterpretation, we can see why the author believes her premise is relevant. Now, you could say, "But isn't the author's misinterpretation just that Doctrine X believes all explanations must appeal to economic factors and cannot appeal to psychological factors"? The problem with that characterization of the misinterpretation is that it's weirdly and unreasonably specific.

  Consider:

  Doctrine X believes John likes Italian food. But, the doctrine is wrong, since, although he likes Italian food, he also likes sushi.

  What's the flaw in this argument? The author misinterprets Doctrine X as asserting John likes only Italian food. This is why the author thinks bringing up the fact John likes sushi somehow disproves the doctrine. So, a necessary assumption would be "Doctrine X precludes John's liking of non-Italian foods."

  Would you have the same objection you raised in your original post here? Someone might say, doesn't the argument just need to assume that Doctrine X precludes John's liking of sushi? Or precludes John's liking of Japanese food? But doesn't need to be so broad as to preclude John's liking of non-Italian food? How would you react to these questions?

  My response is that the author isn't suggesting there's anything special about sushi that conflicts with Doctrine X. She brings up John's taste for sushi because it's an example of a non-Italian food, and due to the author's misinterpretation of Doctrine X, she thinks this example disproves the doctrine. But the author could have pointed out that John likes hot dogs or tandoori chicken and her reasoning would still stand. It would be unreasonable to think that the author's interpretation of Doctrine X was just "John likes Italian food, but not sushi. (But he can like other non-Italian, non-sushi foods.)" Her interpretation of Doctrine X was "John likes only Italian food."
• jumpypilot Core Member

  September 6 17 karma

  Thanks for your detailed response! This is helpful, especially the parallel argument.