Q25

[wang0822]

I need a favor on this one please.

I choose A, while the correct answer is E.

For (A), Paragraph 4 says narrative literature "need not lead to" extreme relativism, which I cannot infer to:
"tends to avoid" extreme relativism.
Example: You need not to buy Manhattan LSAT material to get 180. Can this be inferred to: 180 takers tend to avoid Manhattan LSAT material? I do NOT think so.

For (E), from paragraph 2-4, we know narrative literature makes medical students (future doctors) understand human behavior better, develop empathy, thus prepare for ethical dilemmas better. The more you are prepared, the less you feel shocked by something, isn't it?
"insulate ... from the shock of ethical dilemma" sounds different (if not opposite) to me from "insulate ... from ethical dilemma".

Any inputs will be appreciated!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Ah! Good question! The issue is that you've interpreted "latter" and "former" incorrectly. The "latter" stance is extreme relativism whereas the "former" stance is the absolutist one. So while narrative literature serves as a corrective to extreme relativism it need not lead to the abandonment of moral principles entirely.

For (A), Paragraph 4 says narrative literature "need not lead to" extreme relativism, which I cannot infer to:
"tends to avoid" extreme relativism.

So your example would be correct if it said that narrative literature "need not lead to" the abandonment of moral principles. Your understanding of "need not lead to" is absolutely correct - it's not the same as tends to avoid.

The more you are prepared, the less you feel shocked by something, isn't it?

This is a pretty dangerous assumption. Maybe you are still shocked, but that you're better prepared to deal with it, regardless of the shock you experience.

Here are the line references for the incorrect answer choices:

(A) is explicitly stated in lines 54-56
(B) is explicitly stated in lines 27-31
(C) is explicitly stated in lines 12-14
(D) is explicitly stated in lines 44-46

Hope that helps! And let me know if you still have a question on this one...

[wang0822]

Thank you very much!
Now I realize the assumption I made in (E) is too big.

But for (A), my understanding is that: the "latter" stance is dogmatically absolutism, and the "former" stance is extreme relativism. Can you clarify more on this? What is your thinking process to identify the "latter" and "former"?

I am weak in general at RC, especially understanding the indications of "Such", "This/That", "latter/former". Any idea on improving this?

Really appreciate!

[wang0822]

Maybe it goes like this:
The first sentence of P4 states: "It does not follow...", which to me means "it does not lead to". OK.
The (A) states "it tends to avoid", which to me means "it has tendency to avoid".
So can we infer from "it does not lead to" to "it has tendency to avoid"?

Anyway, I need some advice on improving my understanding of the indications. Any inputs will be greatly appreciated!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

The words "former" and "latter" are used commonly to refer back to something, just as the other words you mentioned: this, such, which, etc.

When two things are mentioned... say beans and rice. When I use the word former, I'm referring to beans, since it's the first of the set. When I use the word latter, I'm referring to rice, since it's the second of the set.

In this passage, "former" refers to the 1st of the two positions outlined in the 4th paragraph - a relativistic stance. The latter refers to the 2nd of the two positions - an absolutist position.

In general, when words are reflexive they refer back to the subject most recently discussed, so try to associate those reflexive words with actual ideas before continuing to read further. You may even try substituting back in the actual point as opposed to the reflexive term.

Hope that helps!

[nflamel69]

Hey Matt,

Maybe I'm not understanding your explanations, but on the former post you said

The "latter" stance is extreme relativism whereas the "former" stance is abandoning all moral principles. So while narrative literature serves as a corrective to extreme relativism it need not lead to the abandonment of moral principles entirely.

. then on the latter post you said

"former" refers to the 1st of the two positions outlined in the 4th paragraph - a relativistic stance. The latter refers to the 2nd of the two positions - an absolutist position

. To my understanding, extreme relativism is the abandoning of all moral principles. and there seems to be a contradiction between your first and second explanation, and I understood the passage as the way you did on your second post. So which one is right?

P.S. See what I did there? former and latter? hehe

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Nice work! and nice catch! I totally misspoke in the original post. I've gone back and edited to help avoid confusion in the future.

The former view is the absolutist one and abandoning moral principles is definitely the relativistic view.

Thanks!

[jm.kahn]

I also find this contradictory like nflame and wang and not sure how this clears up the OP regarding "need not lead to" not being same as "tends to avoid".

Quote:
The former view is the absolutist one and abandoning moral principles is definitely the relativistic view.
Quote:
The "latter" stance is extreme relativism whereas the "former" stance is abandoning all moral principles. So while narrative literature serves as a corrective to extreme relativism it need not lead to the abandonment of moral principles entirely.
. then on the latter post you said
Quote:
"former" refers to the 1st of the two positions outlined in the 4th paragraph - a relativistic stance. The latter refers to the 2nd of the two positions - an absolutist position

[mikekarpman1]

I got this question wrong initially (chose A). I see the weakness in E, but I had the same thing process - how do you go from "need not" to "tends to avoid"? That doesn't work of the reasons given by OP.

BUT upon further review, the first sentence says "It does not follow that readers .... must relinquish all moral principles." I think we can use that. That is, we can go from "It does not follow from X" to "X tends to avoid".

We can do this because "relinquishing all moral principles" seems to still refer to the same "extremely relativistic stance".

[AyakiK696]

Really confused by this question... Like some of the commenters above, I was stuck between E and A and ultimately went with A; I inferred, from the fact that training in ethics DOESN'T adequately "prepare medical students for the multifarious ethical dilemmas they will face as physicians," that the approach that the author proposes DOES. However, I can see how this logical leap isn't really valid. What I'm still confused by is what on earth the following sentences mean:

"It does not follow that readers, including medical professionals, must relinquish all moral principles, as is the case with situational ethics, in which decisions about ethical choices are made on the basis of intuition and are entirely relative to the circumstances in which they arise. Such an extremely relativistic stance would have as little benefit for the patient or physician as would a dogmatically absolute one. Fortunately, the incorporation of narrative literature into the study of ethics, while serving as a corrective to the latter stance, need not lead to the former."

How do we know that "latter" refers to the "extremely relativistic stance"? Whenever a sentence refers to ideas, isn't it intuitive that those ideas would be contained in the sentence immediately preceding that sentence?

[Emmeline Ndongue]

I know the above comments are a bit outdated. I checked most open resources about the "latter" & "former" confusion (paragraph 4 line 55-57), and want to provide some insight.

Kaplan: former-relativistic stance (situational ethics trait), latter-absolutist
7sage: former-relativistic stance (situational ethics trait), latter-absolutist

(A): From paragraph 3, line 40, we know that narrative literature requires abandonment of strictly absolute moral principles.
From paragraph 4, line 47-52, we know extreme relativistic stance is referring to situational ethics, and it involves relinquishing all moral principles.

so we know that it doesn't make sense (=it doesn't follow) for readers of narrative literature to abandon all moral principles. So it's kinda fair to say that you should avoid extreme relativism when using the narrative literature approach. now the question explicitly states "characteristics to THE USE of narrative literature", so the answer choices saying " THE USE of narrative literature" tends to avoid extreme relativism is okay. This is the reason why A should be correct

so the general idea is that narrative literature tells you to put aside MOST moral principles but NOT to the extreme that throwing away all of them like "situational ethics" (extreme relativism). It's about reaching the balance, narrative literature helps correct absolutist (using all moral principles) but don't have to lead to extreme relativism (no moral principles)

(E) Is obviously wrong with the word "shock", never mentioned.