Q8 - Rossi: It is undemocratic

[LSAT-Chang]

The correct answer for this problem is (A) and I don't see how Rossi is appealing to a general principle. How does the first sentence function necessarily as a "principle"? Also, what does (C) and (D) mean? I chose (D) on this one but was really unsure what it was even stating.

[timmydoeslsat]

The correct answer for this problem is (A) and I don't see how Rossi is appealing to a general principle. How does the first sentence function necessarily as a "principle"? Also, what does (C) and (D) mean? I chose (D) on this one but was really unsure what it was even stating.

The first sentence is not a general principle. The conclusion of Rossi's argument is that "So children should have the right to vote."

Should statements are general principles.


Core for Rossi's argument is:

Not democratic for people to live under a govt where interests aren't represented
+
Interests of children and parents are sometimes different

---> Children should have right to vote


The evidence is not sufficient for us to conclude that should statement.

Anyway, that breakdown is more for just practice in recognizing issues with arguments. Always look at incorrect answer choices and issues in arguments during practice and review.

I cannot say with 100% certainty what C and D are talking about.

[LSAT-Chang]

Thanks for your help so I guess you are saying that Rossi's conclusion is the "general principle" outlined in (A). So Rossi is using her insufficient evidence to "appeal to a general principle" that children should have the right to vote, right? But another question I have is.. can principles be opinions? I always that "general principles" were some sort of "rules" laid out -- so that was why I thought the first sentence was the principle. So opinions can be principles as well?

[timmydoeslsat]

Principles are normative statements. Those are the kind of statements that differ from positive statements, which are more of the factual/as it is understood type of statements.

A should statement is going to be an opinion/principle. Should is a value call.

You are correct in that Rossi is using insufficient evidence to back up the should conclusion.

[tzyc]

Why is (D) inccorect?
Actually...what does (D) mean anyway?
And is (A) correct just because the conclusion includes "should"?

Thank you

[ohthatpatrick]

"Describe the Argument" questions are nice in the sense that we're just picking our answer based on whether the answer choice matches something that happened.

The correct answer says something true about the argument; the four wrong ones say something inaccurate.

(A) is correct because Rossi does make an appeal to a general principle. The first sentence is a general principle.

There's no clear cut definition I can give you for 'principle' other than:
- it should be something of a generalization
- it should have the feel of a rule / standard

"Should" statements will sometimes be principles. Principles will sometimes be "should" statements. But we shouldn't equate the two. (That last sentence was a principle)

If I say, "Molly should really take a bath", that's not a principle because it's not generalized.

If I say, "Dirty people should really take a bath", that's a principle.

Principles don't have to use 'should' / 'ought' / 'right' / 'wrong'. They can just imply a standard to be followed.

Many famous cliches that essentially sound like advice for living could be called principles, for example
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
"Dress for the job you want, not the job you have."
etc.

The conclusion here, "children should have the right to vote", could fairly be called a principle. But making an appeal to a principle would have to be describing a premise, not the conclusion.

In trying to convince us that children should have the right to vote, Rossi appeals to the principle that people living in a democracy should have their interests represented.

So (A) is correct because it describes the 1st sentence.

=== other answers ===

(B) Rossi doesn't address any opponent, so he definitely doesn't "deny the good faith" of an opponent.

(C) The only proposal Rossi has is that 'children should have the right to vote'. Does Rossi 'evaluate the predictable consequences' of what would happen if children got the right to vote? No. Eliminate.

(D) This accuses Rossi of offering no rational for a policy. The policy Rossi is discussing is 'giving children the right to vote'. He does offer rationale: it's undemocratic to not have your interests represented by the govt. and children sometimes have different interests from their parents.

(E) Rossi uses the term 'interest' twice, but he uses it in the same sense both times.

Hope this helps. Let me know if questions remain.

[jli136]

Thank you for your explanation. @ohthatpatrick

[RAANZ439]

Can anyone tell me what does it mean by "substitute description"? To dismiss? To exclude?

thanks!