PT136.S3.P4.Q20 > Analytics

Hide analysis

Most people acknowledge that not all governments have a moral right to govern and that there are sometimes morally legitimate reasons for disobeying the law, as when a particular law prescribes behavior that is clearly immoral. ██ ██ ████ ████████ ████████ ████ ████ █████ ███ ███████ ██████████ ███ █████ ██ ████████ ███ ████ ████ █████████ ██ ███████ ███ ███ ██████ ██ █ ██████ ██ ████ ██ ██████ ██████ ███ ███ █████ ███ █████ ██ █████████ ████ █ █████ ████ ██ ████ █ ███ ██████ ███████ ██ ██ ███ ████ ███

Most people's perspective · Moral duty to obey law because it's law; some rare exceptions

Philosophical anarchism (PA) · No moral duty to obey law just because it's law

Commentators' perspective · Reject PA because PA has 2 implications that are absurd

PA allegedly implies (1) all governments are morally equal, and (2) people are morally allowed to do whatever they want (kill people, commit fraud, etc.)

██ █████ ████████ █████████████ █████████ ████ ███ ██████ █████ ███████

Rejection of commentator's perspective · PA does not have those 2 implications

Deny implication 1 · PA can hold that some governments are morally better than others

We can still evaluate morality of government policies/actions based on how much good and harm those policies/actions lead to.

███████ █████████████ ██████████ ████████ ████ ███ ███████████ ████ ██████ ████████ █████ ██████ ██ ███ ████████████████ ███ ██ ████ ██████ ██ █████ ██████ ████████ ███████ ██ ██████ ████ ██ ████████████ ████ ████ ██ █████ ██████ ███████████ █████ ████ ██████ ██ ███████ ████ █████ ███████ ████ ██████████ ██████ ██ ███ ████████ ██ █████ ███████ █████ ██ ███████ ████████ ██████ ███ ███████ █████████ █████████████ ██████████ ████ ████ ██████ ████ █ ████████ █████ ██████████ ██ ████ ███ ███ ████████ █ █████ ██████████ ████ ████ █████ ████ ██████ ██ █████████ ██ ██████████ ███████████ ███████ ██ ███████████ ██ ████ █████ ██ █████ ███ █████ ██████ ███ ███████ ██ ███████████ █████ ████ █████ ████ ███████ ████ ████ ████████████ ███████████ ███ ███████ █████ ███ ██ ███████ █████ ████ ████ █████ ██ █████ ████████ ███████ █████ ██ ██████ ████ ███ ███ ███ █████ █████ ████████ ██ ███ ██████ ███ ████ ███ ████████ ████ ██ ███████ ██ ███ █████ ████ ████ ██████ ███████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ███ ██████████ ████████ ██ ██ ███████ █████ ██ ████████████ ████ ███ █████████

Deny implication 2 · PA doesn't have to think people can do whatever they want

People still have moral duties not to harm others (a duty that doesn't stem from law). Also, There's a moral duty to help others, which might justify supporting government policies/actions. And, there's a moral duty to follow laws if failing to follow them leads to harm.

Passage Style

Critique or debate

20.

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

Some views that ███████ ████████████ ████████ ██ ██ ████████████ ██ █████████████ █████████ ███ ██████ █████████████████

The commentators do think that PA has two highly counterintuitive implications, but this is not the main point of the passage. The main point is a critique of the commentators’ position; the author argues that PA does not entail these implications.

11%

Contrary to what █████████████ ██████████ ██████ ████ ███████████ ███ ███████ ████████ ██ ███████ ███ ████████ █████ ██████████ ███████████ ████ █████ ███████████ ██ ███ ████████

Anti-supported. The main point of the passage is to critique the commentators’ position. The author argues that believing that some governments are morally superior to others and that citizens have moral obligations to one another is not contrary to the claims of PA.

It does not ██████ █████████ ████ █████████████ █████████ ████ ██ ██████████ ██ ███████ ██████ ████ ███ █████ ██ ████ ██████ ████ ██ █████ ██████ ██████ ███ ████████

The commentators argue that PA has two counterintuitive implications: that no government is morally better than any other and that people have no moral duties toward one another. The main point of the passage is to criticize the commentators’ position and argue that these implications actually do not follow logically from PA.

64%

Even if, as ███████ █████████████ ██████████ ██████ ████████████ ████ ████ █████ ██████ ██████ █████ ████ █ █████ ██████████ ██ ███████ ████ ███████ ███ ████████

The main point of the passage is to criticize the commentators’ position and argue that PA doesn't have the two implications the commentators say it does. (D) describes a key piece of the author’s argument in P3, but it does not capture the main point.

Contrary to what ████ ██ ███ █████████ ████ ████████ █████████████ █████████ ████ ███ ████████ ████ ███ ████████ ████ ████ ███ ██████ ████ ███ ███ ███████ ██ ██ ███ ████

Anti-supported. PA does conflict with the view that we should obey the law just because it’s the law. Instead, the main point is that, contrary to what some of its opponents have claimed, PA does not entail these implications.

14%

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 136 - Section 3 - Passage 4 - Question 20

Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action

PrepTest 136 - Section 3 - Passage 4 - Question 20

Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Want to know why the right answer is right?