LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

Get expert LSAT preparation and law school admissions advice from PowerScore Test Preparation.

 Administrator
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 8916
  • Joined: Feb 02, 2011
|
#63998
Complete Question Explanation

Method of Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (A)

Here the philosopher points out that among wolves, it is intolerable for one wolf to attack another
that has already shown submission, and the same goes for foxes and domesticated dogs.

In a convoluted final sentence, the author draws the following conclusion: therefore it would be
wrong to deny animal rights based on the claim that humans are the only ones who can follow a
moral code.

In other words, the information provided about wolves, foxes, and dogs, is intended to show that
these breeds are able to obey a moral code, so a supposed inability to follow such a code should not
be used to deny their rights.

The question is followed by a Method of Reasoning question, so the correct answer choice will
describe the philosopher’s approach—to provide information that refutes a claim.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. The philosopher’s counterexamples of
wolves, foxes, and dogs are provided to refute the claim that animals cannot follow a moral code—
this refuted claim might otherwise be used as basis for the conclusion that animals should be denied
their rights.

Answer choice (B): The philosopher’s argument deals with only three breeds, implying nothing
about all animals.

Answer choice (C): The argument is not intended to question whether the ability to follow a moral
code is necessary, but rather to show that this ability is present is some animals, so even if it is not
necessary some animals still shouldn’t be denied their rights on this basis.

Answer choice (D): The philosopher seeks to refute a claim, rather than to establish one, by showing
that its supposed basis is inaccurate.

Answer choice (E): The philosopher does not suggest that the concept of morality is often defined
too broadly, but rather that some animals can follow a moral code.
 smile22
  • Posts: 135
  • Joined: Jan 05, 2014
|
#14448
In this question, I incorrectly chose answer C. Why is this answer incorrect? Why is A correct?
 David Boyle
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 836
  • Joined: Jun 07, 2013
|
#14456
smile22 wrote:In this question, I incorrectly chose answer C. Why is this answer incorrect? Why is A correct?
Hello,

The philosopher implies that animals, too, can obey moral rules (refusing to attack a submissive wolf/dog/fox). Thus, if animals have moral rules, maybe they, too, not just humans, can have rights.
Answer A deals with this, in that the submissive wolf/dog/fox are counterexamples to the idea that only humans follow moral rules.
Answer C is wrong since the philosopher isn't pooh-poohing the importance of moral rules, but, rather, saying that even a bunch of animals follow those rules.

David
 smile22
  • Posts: 135
  • Joined: Jan 05, 2014
|
#14466
Thank you for the explanation!
 Garrett K
  • Posts: 28
  • Joined: Jul 28, 2014
|
#16463
Hello PowerScore,

Can you please explain question 26 to me? I think the argument's conclusion is complicated and it kinda threw me off considering that I was running out of time on the section and had to quickly choose an answer.

Thanks,
Garrett K
 Nikki Siclunov
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 1362
  • Joined: Aug 02, 2011
|
#16493
Hi Garrett,

The key to this question is to simplify the conclusion:
It would be erroneous to deny that animals have rights on the grounds that only human beings are capable of obeying moral rules.
The author clearly believes that animals have rights (it's "erroneous to deny that they don't"). The second part of the last sentence outlines the premise behind the opposite (implicit) argument: only humans are capable of following moral rules, consequently only human have rights. The author rejects this line of reasoning by describing the actions of wolves, foxes, and domesticated dogs, all of which seem to be following a moral rule.

In its most simple form, the stimulus contains the following structure:
  • Argument:

    Premise: Only humans obey moral rules.
    Conclusion (implicit): Animals don't have rights

    Counterargument:

    Premise: Wolves, dogs, foxes all follow moral rules
    Conclusion: Animals do have rights.
So, the argument proceeds by providing counterexamples (wolves, foxes, etc.) to refute a premise (only humans are capable of obeying moral rules) upon which a particular conclusion is based (animals don't have rights).

Hope this clears things up!
 Garrett K
  • Posts: 28
  • Joined: Jul 28, 2014
|
#16536
Yes that helps a lot! Thanks
User avatar
 Snomen
  • Posts: 35
  • Joined: Sep 30, 2021
|
#93903
Can anyone please provide an example of a logical contradiction?
Thank you!
 Rachael Wilkenfeld
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 1358
  • Joined: Dec 15, 2011
|
#93928
Hi Snomen,

A logical contradiction is one where the terms contradict each other. For example, if you say there is an exclusive club that accepts everyone. You can't both be exclusive and accept everyone---those terms contradict. Another example would be "Steve is married to Lucca, but Lucca is not married to Steve." Since marriage is a bilateral relationship, it doesn't make sense if only one party is married to the other.

It's somewhat unusual to see a logical contradiction as the correct answer choice on the LSAT because it's hard to do subtly.

Hope that helps!

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

Analyze and track your performance with our Testing and Analytics Package.