#15 - Bowers: A few theorists hold the extreme view that

[moshei24]

In this question, (B) is wrong, because that isn't necessary in the argument? They conclude that anarchy deserves no further attention, so it doesn't matter what they do to laissez-faire?

And (A) is right because anarchy goes from meaning "absence of government" to meaning "any social philosophy that countenances chaos"?

Do I have that down correctly? Thanks!

[Nina]

For the correct answer A, does the "shift of the meaning of key term" refers to the meaning of anarchy shifts from "the absence of government" to " the social philosophy that countenances chaos"?

Many thanks!

[Nikki Siclunov]

In this question, (B) is wrong, because that isn't necessary in the argument? They conclude that anarchy deserves no further attention, so it doesn't matter what they do to laissez-faire?

And (A) is right because anarchy goes from meaning "absence of government" to meaning "any social philosophy that countenances chaos"?

Do I have that down correctly? Thanks!

The author never implied that laissez-faire capitalism deserves to be rejected as a social philosophy; this is not something the author needs to establish for the conclusion to be valid.

The issue with this argument is that the theorists defined anarchy as "the absence of government," whereas the author defines it as a "social philosophy that countenances chaos." This is an error of equivocation, correctly described in answer choice (A).

[Steve Stein]

For the correct answer A, does the "shift of the meaning of key term" refers to the meaning of anarchy shifts from "the absence of government" to " the social philosophy that countenances chaos"?

Many thanks!

Hi Nina,

The term whose meaning shifts is anarchy, which shifts from "the absence of government" in the second line, to simply "chaos" in the second to last line. Saying those two are equal goes too far in LSAC's opinion.

I hope that's helpful!

~Steve

[Nina]

Thank you very much, Steve!

[kappe]

Question , 15, what key term is shifts illicitly? and how do I begin to quickly identify this in the future.

[Nicholas Bruno]

Hi Kappe,

The key term that shifts illicitly is "anarchy". Notice how the stimulus changes the definition from the absence of government in the first sentence to chaos in the last sentence. While we may believe hat the absence of government = chaos, the stimulus does not say this (and we can imagine the pro-anarchy theorists would likely disagree that absence of government = chaos). Thus, Answer Choice A is correct.

I hope that helps!

[lsatretaker]

Hello,

I fail to see how the decision to describe anarchy as both "the absence of government" and "a social philosophy that countenances chaos" constitutes an illicit shift and how describing it as "a social philosophy that countenances chaos" constitutes a definition. As I see it, the author's argument is weak because he doesn't provide sufficient evidence that anarchy is 1. a social philosophy or 2. a social philosophy that countenances chaos. Does adding an unjustified description fall under the umbrella of the flaw of re-defining terms?

Further, something can be a "social philosophy that countenances chaos" while still being "the absence of government." And something can be described without being given meaning. This author simply describes the term at hand as one thing, then immediately moves into a discussion of a separate characteristic of the term, which includes premises and a conclusion based on the separate characteristic. How can we know when a term has been "defined"?

Thank you!

[Dave Killoran]

Hello,

I fail to see how the decision to describe anarchy as both "the absence of government" and "a social philosophy that countenances chaos" constitutes an illicit shift and how describing it as "a social philosophy that countenances chaos" constitutes a definition. As I see it, the author's argument is weak because he doesn't provide sufficient evidence that anarchy is 1. a social philosophy or 2. a social philosophy that countenances chaos. Does adding an unjustified description fall under the umbrella of the flaw of re-defining terms?

Further, something can be a "social philosophy that countenances chaos" while still being "the absence of government." And something can be described without being given meaning. This author simply describes the term at hand as one thing, then immediately moves into a discussion of a separate characteristic of the term, which includes premises and a conclusion based on the separate characteristic. How can we know when a term has been "defined"?

Thank you!

Hi Retaker,

I'm not sure how to respond to your post other than to say that this is how LSAC sees it, and so we really have no choice here but to try to understand why they see it this way. Trust me, I've been in the position of disagreeing with the LSAT before, but generally it's a losing battle (actually, it always is lol).

In this case, what we have is a first definition of anarchy as "the absence of government," and a later definition of anarchy as "chaos." That is a leap that I personally see as being too big since I wouldn't equate those two things (while they could ultimately turn out the same, there is no guarantee of that). At this point, I'm not sure what more to say about it? LSAC saw it as a problem, and you did not, but we have no choice but to accept their view here :/

You mention that, "This author simply describes the term at hand as one thing, then immediately moves into a discussion of a separate characteristic of the term, which includes premises and a conclusion based on the separate characteristic." I'd say that the term is defined at the beginning, and then at the end that term is again defined, but differently. The author stated what it was in each case, which is enough to constitute a definition in my eyes.

I'm not sure this helps much. You seem to clearly understand the flaw they are describing (which is awesome) but disagree that it's a flaw. At that point, it's a no-win situation unfortunately.

Thanks!

[lsatretaker]

Nope, that does help. I understand - I need to look more for the patterns and ID the flaws and avoid arguing with the authors.

Thanks!