In a recent study, a group of subjects had their normal daily caloric intake increased by 25 percent. This increase was entirely in the form of alcohol. Another group of similar subjects had alcohol replace nonalcoholic sources of 25 percent of their normal daily caloric intake. All subjects gained body fat over the course of the study, and the amount of body fat gained was the same for both groups.

Summary
One group of subjects increased their daily caloric intake by 25 percent solely by consuming alcohol. Another group of subjects, instead of increasing their caloric intake, substituted 25 percent of their existing caloric intake solely by consuming alcohol. All subjects gained body fat, and the amount of body fat gained was the same for both groups.

Strongly Supported Conclusions
The number of calories a person consumes is not the only factor contributing to body fat gain.

A
Alcohol is metabolized more quickly by the body than are other foods or drinks.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus how quickly alcohol is metabolized. Moreover, we don’t know from the stimulus how different rates of metabolization affect a person’s amount of body fat.
B
In the general population, alcohol is the primary cause of gains in body fat.
This answer is unsupported. We don’t know from the stimulus whether alcohol is the primary cause. We know that it may be a cause, but to say it is the primary cause is too strong.
C
An increased amount of body fat does not necessarily imply a weight gain.
This answer is unsupported. The stimulus does not mention the weight of any of the people in the groups. The stimulus solely focuses on amount of body fat, which may or may not correlate with weight gain.
D
Body fat gain is not dependent solely on the number of calories one consumes.
This answer is strongly supported. The first group increased their caloric intake and the second group’s caloric intake remained the same yet both groups gained body fat. Therefore, body fat gain is not dependent solely on a person’s caloric intake.
E
The proportion of calories from alcohol in a diet is more significant for body fat gain than are the total calories from alcohol.
This answer is anti-supported. Both groups in the stimulus gained the same amount of body fat.

79 comments

Twelve healthy volunteers with the Apo-A-IV-1 gene and twelve healthy volunteers who instead have the Apo-A-IV-2 gene each consumed a standard diet supplemented daily by a high-cholesterol food. A high level of cholesterol in the blood is associated with an increased risk of heart disease. After three weeks, the blood cholesterol levels of the subjects in the second group were unchanged, whereas the blood cholesterol levels of those with the Apo-A-IV-1 gene rose 20 percent.

Summary
Twelve healthy people with version 1 of a gene and twelve healthy people with version 2 of a gene at a standard diet supplemented with high-cholesterol food. High cholesterol is associated with increased risk of heart disease. After three weeks of this diet, people with version 1 of the gene had increased cholesterol, whereas people with version 2 of the gene did not have increased cholesterol.

Strongly Supported Conclusions
Version 2 of the gene might help remove cholesterol from the body. Eating high-cholesterol foods does not always lead to increased cholesterol in the body.

A
Approximately half the population carries a gene that lowers cholesterol levels.
Unsupported. We don’t know the proportion of the general population with version 2 of the gene. The stimulus never told us that the participants in the study were representative of the general population.
B
Most of those at risk of heart disease may be able to reduce their risk by adopting a low-cholesterol diet.
Unsupported. We know high cholesterol increases risk of heart disease, but most people with heart disease might not have high cholesterol. They might have heart disease for other reasons.
C
The bodies of those who have the Apo-A-IV-2 gene excrete cholesterol when blood cholesterol reaches a certain level.
Unsupported. We know the people with version 2 of the gene did not exhibit increased cholesterol. We don’t know whether this has anything to do with storing cholesterol before excreting it.
D
The presence of the Apo-A-IV-1 gene seems to indicate that a person has a lower risk of heart disease.
Unsupported. We don’t know the respective risks of heart disease among the two groups. In any case, people with version 1 of the gene ended up with increased cholesterol, so there’s evidence version 1 may be at higher risk of heart disease than version 2.
E
The presence of the Apo-A-IV-2 gene may inhibit the elevation of blood cholesterol.
Strongly supported. The people with version 2 of the gene didn’t end up with increased cholesterol, whereas people with version 2 did. This is evidence something about version 2 may be reducing cholesterol or counteracting the increased cholesterol we would expect to observe.

54 comments

Which one of the following most accurately states the main conclusion of the moralist’s argument?

This is a Main Conclusion question.

Arguments from “Moralists” are my second favorite on the LSAT. (My favorite are those from “Trampoline Enthusiasts.”)

Humans have a natural disposition to altruism–that is, to behavior that serves the needs of others regardless of one’s own needs…

The moralist starts with a claim about humans having a “natural disposition to altruism.” What does that mean? Luckily she defines it: behavior that serves the needs of others regardless of one’s own needs.

I should be a bit more precise – she defined “altruism.” But we still need to think a little bit about what it means to have a natural disposition toward altruism. That seems to mean that we naturally do things that are helpful to others, even if it doesn’t help ourselves. We don’t need to be told to do it or pressured into doing it.

…but that very disposition prevents some acts of altruism from counting as moral.

The word “but” signals a shift in direction – usually a shift from context to the argument. It’s not always introducing a conclusion. But it often signals that the author’s opinion is about to come soon.

In this case, the part immediately after “but” sounds like the moralist’s opinion about the natural disposition toward altruism. The moralist is saying that the fact we naturally are altruistic prevents some altruistic acts from being moral. That’s interesting – how could an altruistic act not be moral? Isn’t helping people for free a good, moral thing?

The moralist continues:

Reason plays an essential role in any moral behavior.

Not sure I’m following this yet. Keep going:

Only behavior that is intended to be in accordance with a formal set of rules, or moral code, can be considered moral behavior.

Now we can start to make sense of things. This last sentence is a principle (or rule) about what’s required in order to be considered moral behavior. (The word “only” introduces what’s necessary in this conditional statement.)

That principle is an elaboration of the previous line about reason and its essential role in moral behavior. The moralist is laying out what aspect of “reason” is required – you need to be intending to follow a formal set of rules in order for what you do to be moral.

If humans are naturally inclined to do altruistic things, that suggests some altruistic things might not involve intention to follow a formal set of rules. I naturally want to help children trapped in burning cars by the side of the road. If I pull them out of the wreckage, I’m not doing that because I’m trying to follow some law that requires me to save those children. According to the moralist’s principle in the last sentence, that means my saving of those children isn’t moral.

This is how we can tell that the conclusion is “that very disposition prevents some acts of altruism from counting as moral.” That’s the product of applying the rule in the last sentence. Put another way, we know that’s the conclusion, because if you ask the moralist, “Why should I believe that?” – she’d point to the last sentence.

Let’s look for something along the lines of “The natural disposition to altruism prevents some acts of altruism from counting as moral.”

Answer Choice (A) All moral codes prohibit selfishness.

Where is this coming from? We don’t know anything about “all” moral codes from this stimulus. Something that is not supported by the stimulus cannot be the conclusion.

Answer Choice (B) All moral behavior is motivated by altruism

This doesn’t sound like the conclusion, which is a claim about some altruistic acts not being moral. A statement about “all moral behavior” is much too broad for what we’re aiming.

If we want to delve a bit more deeply (which is not necessary in a timed situation), this answer isn’t supported. Although the principle in the last sentence would support the idea that all moral behavior must be intended to follow a formal set of rules, that’s not saying that all moral behavior is motivated by altruism. This answer would have been better (but still wrong) if it had said “All moral behavior is motivated by intention to follow a formal set of rules.”

Answer Choice (C) Behavior must serve the needs of others in order to be moral behavior.

This doesn’t follow the author’s principle in the last sentence, so there’s no way it can be the conclusion. If you picked this, you might be bringing in your own outside opinion about what’s moral, and not focusing on what the moralist said.

Correct Answer Choice (D) Not all altruistic acts are moral behavior.

This is a pretty close restatement of the conclusion. I would have preferred something that included the part about how the natural disposition prevents those acts from being moral. But this is the only answer choice that includes the idea that some altruistic acts are not moral.

(By the way, the statement “Not all X are Y” means “Some X are not Y.” Remember the lesson on negating quantifiers? This is why I’m interpreting (D) as “Some altruistic acts are not moral behavior.”)

Answer Choice (E) Altruism develops through the use of reason.

Where does this come from? If anything, it seems to go against the stimulus. We have a natural disposition toward altruism – that suggests we’re not necessarily reasoning our way to altruism.


83 comments

Moralist: Humans have a natural disposition to altruism—that is, to behavior that serves the needs of others regardless of one’s own needs—but that very disposition prevents some acts of altruism from counting as moral. Reason plays an essential role in any moral behavior. Only behavior that is intended to be in accordance with a formal set of rules, or moral code, can be considered moral behavior.

Summarize Argument
The author tells us that some acts of altruism are not truly moral. The argument provides support through conditional reasoning. We learn that behavior is only moral if it is intended to follow a moral code. Humans are naturally altruistic, which suggests that some altruistic behavior is instinctive, rather than being intentional. Those instinctive acts, then, are not really moral behavior.
P1. Moral behavior → intentionally moral;
P2. Not all altruism is intentionally moral;
Therefore, not all altruism is moral behavior.

Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is the author’s claim that some acts of altruism do not count as moral acts.

A
All moral codes prohibit selfishness.
This is not stated in the argument. In fact, the author doesn’t provide any information about what moral codes actually say.
B
All moral behavior is motivated by altruism.
This is not stated in the argument. All we are told about moral behavior is that it must intentionally follow a moral code. If there are other necessary factors, we don’t know them.
C
Behavior must serve the needs of others in order to be moral behavior.
This is not stated in the argument. The only requirement we know for moral behavior is that it has to be intentionally moral; we’re never told that helping others is necessary.
D
Not all altruistic acts are moral behavior.
This is a good paraphrase of the conclusion. By taking the general rule that moral behavior must be intentional, and telling us that some altruism isn’t intentional, the author supports the claim that some altruism isn’t really moral behavior.
E
Altruism develops through the use of reason.
This is not stated in the argument. Reason may be essential to morality, but we aren’t told much about its relationship with altruism.

83 comments