LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

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

  • Posts: 111
  • Joined: Aug 23, 2016
I don't understand why B is correct and not A?

I chose A because in the 1st paragraph where the author mentions that some commentators reject philosophical anarchism because of it's counterintuitive implications listed in ln 17-21 and the author refutes that it doesn't include those implications. Then the next two paragraphs further correct these implications and supports philosophical anarchism.

PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 59
  • Joined: Oct 12, 2015
Hi ChicaRosa,

You appear to have a good grasp of this passage, but your explanation would support B just as much as it supports A. So the question is what is the difference between those answer choices.

A says that the writer is enthusiastic about most aspects of the theory.

B says that the writer appears to accept the basics of the theory.

Tone can be difficult for many students, but given that the author doesn't flat out tell us that he favors this theory and only discusses two aspects of it, I think it is a little much to say that A is more accurate than B.
  • Posts: 39
  • Joined: Apr 11, 2020
I had to choose between B and E. I chose B because the example of driving on the right side of the road seems to imply that the author agrees with the philosophical anarchists that harming innocents is bad. Are there other examples to show acceptance of basic positions? The tone is so neutral that I find it hard to tell when the author is implicitly agreeing with the philosophical anarchists and when the author is just speaking for them, hence why "antipathy" in E drew me in. That one example determined my correct answer choice, so I would love to know if there are additional ones.

Also, I don't completely understand what E is trying to say. The mention of antipathy towards the theory was really attractive to me, but I don't understand the phrase "antipathy towards both the theory and certain of its logical consequences. What is the "both" referring to? Is this a grammar typo?
 Rachael Wilkenfeld
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 488
  • Joined: Dec 15, 2011
Hi Tejadas,

The overall structure of the passage leads us to believe that the author agrees with at least some of the tenants of philosophical anarchism. Our first paragraph starts by introducing philosophical anarchism, and providing some objections to it. The rest of the passage works to challenge those objections, showing that the author agrees with at least some of the philosophy.

In answer choice (E) the both is serving an important function. It means that the author would have a strong dislike of both the theory in the passage and the logical consequences (ie what that theory would entail). We don't have any language in the passage that would support that level of negativity toward philosophical anarchy. Remember, antipathy isn't the same as apathy. Antipathy indicates a strong negative feeling towards a subject.

Hope that helps!

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

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