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: 8917
  • Joined: Feb 02, 2011
|
#23090
Complete Question Explanation

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

The historian claims that Alexander the Great should not be judged according to current notions of justice, and instead should be judged by the standards of his own time. The rest of the historian's "argument" consists of giving examples of questions he thinks are valid and would judge a ruler by the standards of his own time, but is not evidence for his position. In fact, one of the questions contradicts the historian's claim, as the student will point out.

The historian claimed that it is appropriate to ask whether Alexander elevated the standards of justice in his time. However, the concept of elevation implies that there is some relative absolute. If we do not assume a superior understanding of justice, it is impossible to say that Alexander elevated justice. That is what the student refers to when arguing that it is impossible to tell whether Alexander raised contemporary standards of justice without referring to some standard external to Alexander's own culture.

Answer choice (A) The student does not refer to any specific period in the past that must be referenced.

Answer choice (B) This is a close choice, but incorrect. The student shows that the historian makes statements inconsistent with the principle, not that some consequences of the principle are inconsistent with each other.

Answer choice (C) Since neither the student nor the historian were concerned with Alexander's heroic qualities, this response is incorrect. The historian included "heroic stature" as a background detail which is nonessential to the argument.

Answer choice (D) The student neither mentions nor implies anything about motive.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. As discussed, the student points out an inconsistency between the historian's criteria and the historian's principle that only the standards of a figure's own culture should be used when discussing justice.
 GLMDYP
  • Posts: 100
  • Joined: Aug 19, 2013
|
#12532
Hi!
I cannot understand from where I can find the "one of the historian's criteria". Which criteria is inconsistent with the principle that historian has advanced?
Thanks!
 David Boyle
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 836
  • Joined: Jun 07, 2013
|
#12627
GLMDYP wrote:Hi!
I cannot understand from where I can find the "one of the historian's criteria". Which criteria is inconsistent with the principle that historian has advanced?
Thanks!
Hello GLMDYP,

The historian asks, "Did Alexander elevate the contemporary standards of justice?" But how can we tell if Alexander "elevated" them, unless we have something else to compare the old standards to?
The standards in Alexander's day, people must have thought were great, otherwise they wouldn't have been the standards. So as the student notes, the historian's wrong when he/she says "Alexander the Great should not be judged by appeal to current notions of justice", because we might have to appeal to current notions to see if Alex "elevated" the old standards.

Hope this helps,
David
 avengingangel
  • Posts: 275
  • Joined: Jun 14, 2016
|
#28355
Does principle mean conclusion here? Also, does it mean conclusion in all of LSAT answer choices ??
Because, of course, there is the 'Principle' type of question stem, which is something different. Just want to to discern if 'principle' in this question is referring to the conclusion, or the actual 'principle' of the conclusion ?? Let me know if that doesn't make sense. Thanks!
 Nikki Siclunov
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 1362
  • Joined: Aug 02, 2011
|
#28402
Hi angel,

The conclusion here is indeed a principle, but this is particular to this question alone. Not all conclusions are principles, and not all principles are conclusions. The fact that the two overlap here is a coincidence. A "principle" is typically a general rule that tells us what we should do, or ought to do, in a given situation; alternatively, it's a means of reaching a judgment about something. Because the conclusion is worded as an imperative (what we "should" do), it is reasonable to describe this conclusion as a principle being advanced by the historian.

Hope this helps! :)

Thanks,
 avengingangel
  • Posts: 275
  • Joined: Jun 14, 2016
|
#28466
Perfect - thanks for confirming that, Nikki!
 Blueballoon5%
  • Posts: 156
  • Joined: Jul 13, 2015
|
#45340
Administrator wrote: However, the concept of elevation implies that there is some relative absolute. If we do not assume a superior understanding of justice, it is impossible to say that Alexander elevated justice. That is what the student refers to when arguing that it is impossible to tell whether Alexander raised contemporary standards of justice without referring to some standard external to Alexander's own culture.
Hello! What does relative absolute mean in this context? (English is not my first language). I did get the right answer, but I am just a little confused with the meaning of this word in the explanation. Thanks!
 Rachael Wilkenfeld
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 1358
  • Joined: Dec 15, 2011
|
#62611
Hi Blueballoon,

In this case, relative absolute means an absolute standard of justice compared to the standard of the culture. Since the argument says that we should only judge Alexander the Great by the standards of his day, and see if he elevated the standards. But in order to see if he elevated the standards, we'd have to be able to compare the standards of his day to other "higher" or "absolute" standard, relative to the standard of his day. So you can think of the term "relative" here to mean comparative or comparison.

Hope that helps!
Rachael

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

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