PT109.S3.Q9 > Analytics

Hide analysis

Support At some point in any discussion of societal justice, the only possible doctrinal defense seems to be "That is the way we do things here." Support Different communities that each recognize the dignity and equality of all citizens will, for example, nevertheless settle on somewhat different provisions for the elderly. ██ ██ ███ ███ ████ ███████ ██████████ ██ ███████ ███ █████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ███ ███████ ██ ██████ ████████ █████ ██████ █ ██████████ ██████

Argument Summary

The author observes that in "any" discussion of societal justice, there will ultimately be an appeal to arbitrary preferences, or to the specific details of each particular case: "That is the way we do things here." As an example, the author points out that different communities can agree on "the dignity and equality of all citizens" and yet come up with different ways to care for the elderly.

From these observations, the author concludes that "general principles of justice" (like the dignity and equality of all citizens) are never sufficient to tell us the specific details of a particular state's social policies (like how, specifically, that state chooses to care for the elderly).

Which one of the following ███████████ ██ █████ ████ ███████████ ███ ████████ ██████████ ███ ███████ ██████████ ██ ████████

Question Type

Strengthen

We want to strengthen the claim that knowing general principles of justice will never be enough to tell us the details of a particular state's policies. By saying "never," the author is drawing an absolute conclusion, which is risky because it could be disproved by a single counterexample.

To strengthen the author's claim, it would be useful to add not just another example (though that would still strengthen), but a more general statement establishing that general principles of justice can never tell us the details of specific policies.

Although two socialist ██████ ████ ███████ ██ ███ ████ █████████ ███████████ ███ ███ █ █████████ ████ ██ ███████ ███ ████████ ███████ ██ ██████ █████████ ████ ███ █████ ████

Incorrect. It's not clear that "electoral principles" are the same as "general principles of justice." If we skim the rest of the answer choices, we see that there are other answer choices specifically talking about "principles of justice." That should be our cue to rule (A) out and move on.

Two democratic industrial ███████ ████ ███████████ ██ ████████████ ████████ ███████████ ████████ ████████ ██ ███ ██████████ ███████████ ██ ████ ████ ███████ ██ █████████

Incorrect. Similar to (A), it's not clear that (B), when it mentions "capitalistic economic principles," is necessarily talking about "general principles of justice." Because there are other answer choices that directly mention "principles of justice," we should look at those instead of spending more time on (B).

Although each adhered ██ ███ ███ ███████████ █ █████████ ███ █ ████████ ████ ███ ███ ████ ████████████ ██ ██████ ██ ███ ███████████

Incorrect. As with (A) and (B), we don't know if the "principles" mentioned in (C) are "general principles of justice" (even if they are, notice that these two states don't necessarily agree on the same principles). Since there are other answer choices that talk specifically about principles of justice, we should move on to those.

Two states founded ██ ███ ████████ ██ ███████ ██████████ ██ ███████ ███ █████████ ████████████ ████ ███ ██ ██ ███ ██ █████ ██ ██ ████████ ███ █████████████████████ ███ █████

Correct. Even though we were hoping for a more general statement, not just another example, this example still provides support for the author's conclusion. (D) specifically provides an example of a case where two states agree on general principles of justice, and yet the specific details of their policies differ. This supports the conclusion that knowing about general principles of justice isn't enough to tell us the policy details of a specific state.

87%

Two societies based ██ █████████ ██████████ ██ ████████ ████ ████████ ██ ███ ███ ███████████ ███ ███ ████ ████████████ █████████

Incorrect. This isn't about states agreeing on the same principles of justice, but states with different principles of justice. Despite their differences, the states still have the same specific unemployment benefits. This doesn't provide support for the author's conclusion.

Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.

It takes about five minutes.

Take the free diagnostic

More free LSAT prep: Sample LSAT questions Full-length diagnostic & practice test All free LSAT resources

PrepTest 109 - Section 3 - Question 9

Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action

PrepTest 109 - Section 3 - Question 9

Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Want to know why the right answer is right?