#25 - Sociologist: Widespread acceptance of the idea that

[Curtis1992]

Hello PowerScore,

I have an issue in regard to question 25 from section one of the September 2007 LSAT. When I read the question I identified the conclusion as, "So legislators.... engaging in it." Then upon the question stem I was able to discern the question type (assumption), and I ultimately came up with the prephrase that the correct answer when negated was going to weaken the aforementioned conclusion. Answer choices A,B and C all seemed irrelevant to me but answer choice D appeared to be the correct answer because once I negated it, I came up with the statement that behavior that is harmful to the person who engages in it IS harmful to someone else, which would directly attack the conclusion that the legislators should not propose any law prohibiting behavior that is not harmful to anyone besides the person engaging in it. Moreover, is answer choice D incorrect only because it has the "in most cases" before the rest of the answer choice? And would it be correct if it dropped the "in most cases" clause?

Also, could you explain why E is correct in detail so I can better understand why it is the BEST answer?

Thanks!!!

[nicholaspavic]

Hi Curtis,

Thanks for the great question. With only 47% answering this one correctly on test day, this was a very tough nut to crack.

First of all, you are correct that this is an Assumption question. But what kind? Supporter or Defender? Well in this case, there are gaps in the argument which means it's a Supporter type, Assumption question that appears in about 40% of all the LSAT's Assumption questions. Remember, a correct answer choice in a Supporter Assumption will link together "new" or "rogue" elements in the stimulus or fill logical gaps in the argument.

So let's identify that gap. Specifically, a gap between the conclusion which you correctly identified, that can be conditionally stated as: if the legislators don't want to harm democracy, they should not pass laws prohibiting behavior of actions that are only harmful to those people engaging in the behavior and connecting that to the premises of "asumptions that appear to guide legislators will often become widely accepted" and "widespread acceptance of the idea of the idea that individuals are incapable of looking after their own welfare is injurious to democracy."

So I am looking for an answer choice that roughly states that if legislators pass a law against somebody's behavior which only harm themselves, then it will appear that the legislators were guided by an assumption that individuals are not capable of looking after their own welfare.

In looking at Answer Option (D), there is a large red flag right in the beginnining with "in most cases." Remember, I am not looking for "most" (>50%) cases. I want something that fills the logical gap. I want a good conditional statement. I think you were trying to follow the rule of negating the necessary condition in what you thought was your conditional logic, but conditional logic is typically reserved for CERTAINTY. Some and most don't provide certainty other than "at least one" in the case of SOME and "more than half" in the case of MOST. And unfortunately, this is also where your logical negation of (d) went astray. Because that's where the negation should have happened with the "in most cases."

Now to your second question about removing the most clause. I think that if you took that out, it would be a good answer. Not the best, but it would attack that conclusion. But what about Answer Choice (E)? We know it's the right answer now. How did we get there? Well the prephrase above will help a lot with that. I know that it's wordy, but it's right. And focusing on conditional logic in these supporter types is CRUCIAL. But here's the best part about the Assumption Negation technique, it is your pathway to confirming the right answer when you think you have it. And this is where PowerScore stands out. This is your test to make sure that you have the correct answer 100% of the time for Assumption questions. So study it. Live it. Love it.

The negation of Answer Choice (E) is: a legislator proposing a law prohibiting an act that can harm only the person performing the act will seem to be assuming that individuals are capable of looking after their own welfare. And that most definitely attacks the conclusion that legislators who value democracy should not propose any law prohibiting behavior that is not harmful to anyone besides the person engaging in it.

So what to do now? Review the Opposition Construct and if you are in the full course, our Statement Negation Drills in Lesson 5 Homework are so important for success on this aspect of the test.

So thanks for the great question and I hope this helped!

[Curtis1992]

I am a student in your online course, so I will review lesson 5 and thank you for the wonderful explanation.

Curtis

[LSAT2018]

Would this be in conditional reasoning form?

Prohibits Behavior Not Harmful to Anyone Else → Not Propose Law


But how would I connect the 'incapable of looking after their own welfare' and 'injurious to a democracy' part?

[Shannon Parker]

Would this be in conditional reasoning form?

Prohibits Behavior Not Harmful to Anyone Else → Not Propose Law


But how would I connect the 'incapable of looking after their own welfare' and 'injurious to a democracy' part?

Because this premise is about what should occur and not will or will not occur, i would not attempt to use conditional reasoning to diagram the premise. By using the assumption negation technique we can quickly confirm that answer choice "E" is the correct answer.

The negation of E would be "a legislator proposing a law prohibiting an act that can harm only the person performing the act will not seem to be assuming that individuals are incapable of looking after their own welfare." If the negation is true, then the conclusion is not true because the legislation would not have anything to do with the assumption that individuals are incapable of looking after their own welfare.

Hope this helps.

[Coleman]

I'm confused with the usage of the word "besides" in the stimulus. It states "So legislators who value democracy should not propose any law prohibiting behavior that is not harmful to anyone BESIDES the person engaging it."
I thought it means that this law bars behavior that is not harmful to anyone in addition to (or as well as) the person engaging it. However, it seems like the answer choice interprets this as the behavior is harmful to the person engaging it but not other people.
The definition of "besides" is in addition to; apart from; as well according to the dictionary. Each of these three definitions can play a completely different role within the sentence and even change the whole meaning of the sentence.
I got this question correct by eliminating the wrong answer choices and primarily relied on logical structure, but I just wanted to be more meticulous about the words and details.
Could you clarify what is the role played by the word "BESIDES" as I pointed out? and can you give me some other examples that show similar usage?

Thanks in advance!

[blade21cn]

Personally, I don't think "behavior that is not harmful to anyone besides the person engaging in it" is an element in the argument, though "(should not) propose any law prohibiting behavior ..." is a new term in the conclusion. It just means "behavior that's harmful only to the person engaging in it." There's no need to unpack it any further, or hoping it would interact somehow with anything else in the stimulus, which is corroborated by the correct answer choice, "(E) ... an act that can harm only the person performing the act ..." As you can see, (C) restated/paraphrased the same language. From a grammatical and semantic point of view, "besides" means "+," whereas "except" means "-." Just my two cents. Hope this helps.

[Adam Tyson]

Coleman: "Besides" means "in addition to" or "other than." You are correct that the statement here does not require that the type of legislation in question involves people harming themselves, but only with actions that do not harm anyone else. So they might harm the person doing the action or else they might harm no one at all. In either case, the missing link is that if a legislator supports such legislation, it will look like they think people can't take care of themselves. Good analysis, and good job using process of elimination!

Blade: The fact that the legislation at issue involves actions that harm nobody other than the person taking those actions is actually a very important part of the argument! It is the new idea in the conclusion that we have to link up with the rogue element in the premise regarding what legislators may appear to believe.