The last sentence is referring to to the part about statistical anomaly. It's basically saying that just because something does not occur frequently, that is not a sufficient reason to not do that thing.
So the argument basically goes like this: the philosopher is arguing against the claim that "it is absurd to argue that people are morally obligated to act in a certain way simply because not acting in that way would be unnatural". He then defines what it means to be unnatural, "either a violation of the laws of nature or a statistical anomaly". (Statistical anomaly means things that occur infrequently or of little statistical significance.) There are two ways in which an action is unnatural. The first possibility, violating the laws of nature, is not possible, e.g. you cannot defy gravity. This is the part "there is no possibility of acting as one cannot" is referring to. The second possibility, acting against statistical anomaly, is perfectly okay because there is no reason not to act a certain way just because it is not a common occurrence, e.g. defying a social folkway is not necessarily morally wrong.
WOW, your explanation is brilliant and detailed! Now I definitely understand the author's meaning!! The difficulty here is all about referential phrasing. If you can find what part referring to, you can totally understand the meaning!
Thanks, I didn't get this question right on the first run through, I had to look up the word anomaly to get this question right. You been quite active lately. Every lesson I go I see your insightful comments. You planning to take the October LSAT?
Yes. I spend most everyday on 7sage I definitely will take October LSAT and now I plan to do 1 PT every 2 days just started at July 21st. Actually I do one today at just got 155.. so a little bit disappointed. How about you ?
I am taking the October LSAT too, I studied using the Powerscore series for about a month and took the June LSAT. I was so disappointed when I only got a 158 on the actual test. In retrospect, it's not all that surprising, considering that I was one of the stupid people who didn't use the blind review method and did not practice with full length practice tests. It really screwed me over because I have already did like 30 of the pretests. (Complete waste of time) This time, I am sticking with full length practice test and blind review method. I am currently redoing the games from Preptests 7-30 using JY's foolproof method. The thing really screwed me over on the June test was the two logic games. (one of them being the experimental, of course.) After I blew the both games, I just can't get pass and focus on the current section. I am really worried that I'll run out of Preptests before I could develop a pacing strategy.
Anyway, glad to hear that you are also taking the October LSAT. Good luck on your studying.
From your experience, I believe the blind review is really important and I should stick to it. (maybe I should get at least 170 at each BR) We have the same concern about running out the PT haha. You can add my gtalk or email me sunyuchencn@gmail.com if you want a LSAT study buddy. Now I am just focusing on finish PT 46 to PT65, which 7sage have all explanation. After that, I may do PT36 to PT45. I do 1 PT every two days, a little bit hurry, because I want to finish at least all PT from 36 to 69 before October LSAT. The speed is high so sometime I spend less time on the blind review, which now I realized it's very harmful.
I'll definitely add you. I am pretty much spending all day studying LSAT, so basically 8 hours a day. I am actually planning to do 1 pretest per day beginning in August; I am just concentrating on logic games this week. There is a natural tendency to spend little time on blind review, but we must fight that urge! I made that mistake before, I won't make it again.
@glvogel7, I have to say JY's course is really brilliant and insightful. Hope you can enjoy the study and forget time flies! Finish the course as soon as you can and begin drilling !
Comments
So the argument basically goes like this: the philosopher is arguing against the claim that "it is absurd to argue that people are morally obligated to act in a certain way simply because not acting in that way would be unnatural". He then defines what it means to be unnatural, "either a violation of the laws of nature or a statistical anomaly". (Statistical anomaly means things that occur infrequently or of little statistical significance.) There are two ways in which an action is unnatural. The first possibility, violating the laws of nature, is not possible, e.g. you cannot defy gravity. This is the part "there is no possibility of acting as one cannot" is referring to. The second possibility, acting against statistical anomaly, is perfectly okay because there is no reason not to act a certain way just because it is not a common occurrence, e.g. defying a social folkway is not necessarily morally wrong.
I definitely will take October LSAT and now I plan to do 1 PT every 2 days just started at July 21st.
Actually I do one today at just got 155.. so a little bit disappointed.
How about you ?
Anyway, glad to hear that you are also taking the October LSAT. Good luck on your studying.
Now I am just focusing on finish PT 46 to PT65, which 7sage have all explanation. After that, I may do PT36 to PT45. I do 1 PT every two days, a little bit hurry, because I want to finish at least all PT from 36 to 69 before October LSAT. The speed is high so sometime I spend less time on the blind review, which now I realized it's very harmful.