to the top

#8- One should not confuse a desire for money with a desire

Administrator
PowerScore Staff
PowerScore Staff
 
Posts: 6578
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 4:19 pm
Points: 3,253

Please post your questions below!
fendrick
LSAT Apprentice
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2019 3:28 pm
Points: 7

I was torn between B and C, but ended up choosing C because the statement "One should not confuse... for material possessions" seemed to support the statement containing the word "moreover"

Can someone please clarify. Thanks!
Robert Carroll
PowerScore Staff
PowerScore Staff
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 7:18 am
Points: 384

fendrick,

The "moreover" means that the sentence containing it will almost certainly have to have a direct relation to the sentence coming right before it, because that word indicates the author is continuing a discussion or expanding a discussion. If that sentence is the conclusion, so that the first sentence is a subsidiary conclusion (as answer choice (C) is claiming), then the role of the second sentence should be a pure premise - a claim that supports another, but for which no support is provided. But if that's the case, the second sentence would have to support the first, if answer choice (C) is true. There is no way to explain the use of "moreover" in that case, so answer choice (C) can be rejected on that basis.

If you're between two answers and you have a definitive proof, as here, that one is incorrectly describing the role, you can definitely eliminate that answer.

None of that explains why answer choice (B) is correct, of course. Look at the statement made in the first sentence - it's telling us that no one should confuse two things. Why not? What if those things are similar or even identical? Then it's not a confusion to equate them! So either the author is just presenting this statement with no basis or the author will go on to explain why it's true. In this case, the author is explaining why the two desires are distinct. Both the other sentences do this. So those sentences are explaining the first. If they both are explaining the first sentence, neither of them can be the conclusion, so the first sentence must be the conclusion.

Robert Carroll
fendrick
LSAT Apprentice
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2019 3:28 pm
Points: 7

thank you!