i initially chose B because i thought although philosophical anarchism denies the common sense that "one should obey a law simply because it is the law", its insist on people's morality will result in the same effect of people's obedience of law: since people's positive moral obligation will lead them support government's effort to help others (44-49). Therefore, P.A actually conforms with common sense.
but since B is wrong, am I wrongly inferring something?
Thanks a lot!
LSAT Forum
2 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- ohthatpatrick
-
Thanks Received: 3808
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 4661
- Joined: April 01st, 2011
- This post thanked 1 time.
Re: Q27
I think you're pretty close to the right notion, but (B) is too narrowly focused on whether PA accords with common sense, and the author is not trying to make that specific point.
From the way you just summarized the facts, it sounds to me like PA does NOT accord with common sense, but it still results in people behaving in a way we'd be happy about.
Your 2nd idea, that people will end up helping out govt. aid efforts anyway, is behavior, not thinking.
Common sense is concerned with thinking, not behavior.
Since this is a big picture question, I would remind myself of the Most Valuable Sentence (the sentence that best articulates the author's main point/purpose in this passage).
Take a sec to look through the passage and pick one sentence that best encapsulates the author's main point/purpose in writing this passage.
=====
Okay. I would pick line 22-23. The 1st paragraph follows the classic template of outlining the OTHER point of view. "Most people acknowledge X". "It is also commonly supposed that Y". But PA rejects this.
Some commentators (other side of the Scale) reject PA because they think PA leads to point 1 and point 2.
Line 22-23, author's side of the Scale, says "however, they're wrong to think PA leads to point 1 and point 2".
That's our main point/purpose. The author is defending PA against criticism, but more specifically defending PA in terms of whether it leads to point 1 and point 2.
The next two paragraphs have a very obvious supporting structure for line 22-23. Paragraph 2 addresses whether PA leads to point 1. Paragraph 3 addresses whether PA leads to point 2.
(A) this passage is not primarily concerned with describing the development of PA. It's concerned with arguing that PA does NOT lead to the 2 conclusions some commentators believe it does.
(B) Closest wrong answer, because it captures the overall feel of the author defending PA, but the passage was not about whether PA matches common sense but whether PA leads to the 2 conclusions the commentators mentioned.
(C) The author does NOT think that the 2 points are "necessary implications of a particular theory" ... his entire purpose is to prove that.
(D) Sure, we can live with this. I didn't realize the answer would literally say "defend against criticism" when I made my guess. That's just the generic label I give a passage when it starts off discussing what critics have said about X and then the author gives us a but/yet/however, the critics are wrong/confused.
(E) The author doesn't acknowledge PA's defects, nor does it discuss PA's proponents. The author is trying to argue that PA does not have certain defects its critics believe it to have.
Hope this helps.
From the way you just summarized the facts, it sounds to me like PA does NOT accord with common sense, but it still results in people behaving in a way we'd be happy about.
Your 2nd idea, that people will end up helping out govt. aid efforts anyway, is behavior, not thinking.
Common sense is concerned with thinking, not behavior.
Since this is a big picture question, I would remind myself of the Most Valuable Sentence (the sentence that best articulates the author's main point/purpose in this passage).
Take a sec to look through the passage and pick one sentence that best encapsulates the author's main point/purpose in writing this passage.
=====
Okay. I would pick line 22-23. The 1st paragraph follows the classic template of outlining the OTHER point of view. "Most people acknowledge X". "It is also commonly supposed that Y". But PA rejects this.
Some commentators (other side of the Scale) reject PA because they think PA leads to point 1 and point 2.
Line 22-23, author's side of the Scale, says "however, they're wrong to think PA leads to point 1 and point 2".
That's our main point/purpose. The author is defending PA against criticism, but more specifically defending PA in terms of whether it leads to point 1 and point 2.
The next two paragraphs have a very obvious supporting structure for line 22-23. Paragraph 2 addresses whether PA leads to point 1. Paragraph 3 addresses whether PA leads to point 2.
(A) this passage is not primarily concerned with describing the development of PA. It's concerned with arguing that PA does NOT lead to the 2 conclusions some commentators believe it does.
(B) Closest wrong answer, because it captures the overall feel of the author defending PA, but the passage was not about whether PA matches common sense but whether PA leads to the 2 conclusions the commentators mentioned.
(C) The author does NOT think that the 2 points are "necessary implications of a particular theory" ... his entire purpose is to prove that.
(D) Sure, we can live with this. I didn't realize the answer would literally say "defend against criticism" when I made my guess. That's just the generic label I give a passage when it starts off discussing what critics have said about X and then the author gives us a but/yet/however, the critics are wrong/confused.
(E) The author doesn't acknowledge PA's defects, nor does it discuss PA's proponents. The author is trying to argue that PA does not have certain defects its critics believe it to have.
Hope this helps.
2 posts Page 1 of 1