- Posts: 5
- Joined: Dec 20, 2019
I had a problem with accepting C as the right answer, because even if in the example of cutting a cake, one person who would cut the cake in half and the cut only one of the halves into smaller pieces in hopes of getting the large portion still has same probability as anyone else of getting the largest portion.
Lines 49-51 describe the original position as everyone getting "at least a minimum amount of these primary goods." It does not specify these have to be equal. Furthermore, I inferred that one of those "primary goods" could be zero in the allotment hypothetically chosen by an individual. With this in mind, I did not see answer choice C as weakening the argument at all.
I know that in the cake analogy used earlier in the passage, the just arrangement was the child cutting the cake into equal pieces, but I didn't impose that restriction on the allocation of primary ideals in life. Because a cake is a homogenous substance, I didn't apply that to someone allocating primary ideals for people because there are wealth, power, opportunity (heterogenous). The hypothetical person responsible for allocating the primary could decide "everybody needs more income than opportunities," therefore lessening a particular amount of a primary good without lessening the share for any individual receiving the primary goods.
I know somewhere in here I'm incorrect, but I'm not sure how to know in future situations to not reason like this. Sometimes reasoning in this way is beneficial on the LSAT, so I'm a little confused. Any ideas on how to move forward without making this mistake?
I chose B because, if correct, the thought experiment which served as the basis for the rest of the implications in the passage would be useless. However, I read the explanations for why it's wrong in the earlier comments and can see how, because its a thought experiment, it doesn't necessary have to be realistic.
Thank you in advance!