PT32.S1.Q19 - genuinely altruistic behavior

Comments

• zkchrumz Free Trial Member

  November 2016 164 karma

  Definition of altruism, courtesy of Merriam-Webster: feelings and behavior that show a desire to help other people and a lack of selfishness. Basically 'self-interested' and 'altruistic' are forever apart bi conditional. If you can prove that one is always somewhere, you can prove that the other isn't.
  
  There is FL in action here. First, I would say, is PERSON -> SUFF SELF ESTEEM. Next sentence, SELF ESTEEM -> BELIEVE ONES USEFUL AND NEEDED. Next sentence, Altruistic behavior can be understood as being motivated to fill this need/necessary condition, e.g. to reinforce ones belief that they are useful and needed. And since altruism is defined as something like 'doing good things for other people which don't affect you, then he's assuming that 'can be' = 'is in fact'. With that, if all behavior that seems altruistic is in fact motivated by selfish desires, then there is no altruism period.
• zkchrumz Free Trial Member

  November 2016 164 karma

  The LSAC could have rephrased the answer choice to be what you were thinking, but that is the conclusion. You cannot generally argue with the conclusion. You need to attack the evidence/assumption, which you don't have to assume are true on the LSAT. Also, if the answer choice for a flaw question were, "The scientist's conclusion [insert here] is totally full of it.' That would be either too easy, or misleading, depending on the flaw, and I would be wary.
• wilderness Alum Member

  November 2016 edited November 2016 133 karma

  This is how I see it. The mistake here is that we're assuming that just because we can interpret the world/certain concepts in a particular way, that the world actually DOES operate under those concepts.
  
  For example, I can understand the world by systematizing it under a Marxian lens. I can view the economy as the stealing of labor from the working class, etc. Now, just because I can interpret the world in this way, does that mean that the world actually DOES operate this way?
  
  The mistake in both this question and in the example I showed above is that, the mere fact that we can interpret the world using a specific lens doesn't mean that that lens actually exists. Likewise, just because I can understand altruistic acts as being motivated to reinforce the belief that I'm useful and needed (which would increase my self esteem), doesn't mean that a connection actually exists between altruism and my need to be useful and needed. It's one hypothesis, but it's not necessarily the only hypothesis or the correct hypothesis. It's just one theory.
  
  Another example. The mere fact that I can understand the world according to general relativity is not sufficient to state that the world actually does operate according to general relativity.
  
  Another example. Being able to interpret a specific connection between two objects or understand the relationship between two objects in a specific way does not necessitate that these objects/concepts be related in the manner in which I interpret them to be.
  
  Or, if you like: It is not the case that because I can understand my existence as the manifestation of God's will that my existence actually is a manifestation of God's will.