Q17 - The difference between manners

[tamwaiman]

It is a must-be-true question, but why the correct answer has a new concept "harm"?
Thanks.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

That's a good question. Notice that the answer choice is not just about harm, but rather harm to another person. So if morals are not necessarily social in nature, you can commit an immoral action without causing harm to another person.

It's the "another person" part that's important.

(B) is too strong. Some immoral action might not be violations of the rules of etiquette.
(C) is too strong. We know that the rules of morality might apply when one is alone, but not that they only apply when one is alone.
(D) is never addressed. We don't know what is more important or less important.
(E) is contradicted by the information. What is social in nature could be a matter of morality.

Does that help clear this one up?

[tamwaiman]

Hi mshermn

Thank you.

Because the stimulus tells me that "the latter (morals) are not necessarily social in nature", I draw the formal logic as follow:
morals-->~social in nature

I interpret (E) as
social in nature-->~morality

Aren't they contrapositive?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Well hang on there a second. Saying that morals are not necessarily social in nature is not the same thing as saying that morals are necessarily not social in nature.

There's a little bit of a difference, which means that you can't set up a conditional relationship in formal notation to represent the statement on morals.

Does that help clear this up?

[lhermary]

Does that help clear this up?

No .

Maybe you could dumb is down a little.

stimulus
'Moral are not necessarily social in nature'

Answer 'what is social in nature could not be a matter of morailty'

it's pretty much the same thing!

[redcobra21]

Hey Matt,

Thanks for the helpful response. I'm still a bit confused by this problem and was wondering if I could get your take if you get a chance.

I'm not sure how you are supposed to diagram "morals are not necessarily social in nature?" I get that this basically means that for morals, it is possible to be social or to not be social, but I'm having a hard time visualizing it. I feel like this would make it a lot easier to understand the right answer (or is it not possible to diagram that statement?)

Also, still a bit confused about your explanation about "harm." Shouldn't the answer choice for (A) say "one could be immoral without ever being social?" I still have no idea how you can infer from the given stimulus the statement about harm.

Thanks!

[tstark.ann]

I got this question wrong too, but I think I understand now. You have to remember that "not necessarily" social is not the same thing as "NOT social". So B,C,&E are just too extreme. D is obviously out of scope which leaves A. I see how A could be inferred because since morals are not necessarily social, you could do an immoral act alone and therefore no other person would be harmed. Though I think its better just to eliminate B,C,E & D pick A and move on without thinking of all that!

[MMeissner947]

Can one of the detail creeps help with this, because E is correct imo. Could means possibility or might, so when E says could not, it doesnt necessarily mean never or cannot, it could mean possibly not or might not, so the answer choice could be interpreted validly as stating; what is social in nature "Might" not be a matter of morality.

Please someone comment on this point.

[ohthatpatrick]

I think they're trying to force the "CANNOT be" interpretation. The other one would be more clearly said as something like,
"What is social in nature could be not a matter of morality."

Even if you got your interpretation, though, there's no support provided for the idea that social stuff transcends moral.

There's only evidence that moral stuff transcends social.

From the info provided, it is possible (and just as likely) that ALL social matters lay within the realm of morality.

It is not possible that all moral matters lay within the realm of social stuff, because the 1st sentence guarantees us that there are instances of morality that are not social in nature.

[yashp964]

Althoug i chose wrong but after careful review this is what i got

" Morals are not necessarily social in nature"
What i translated is, ''not necessarily''= means not always, so two meanings
(1) morals are social sometimes [Morals------>social], contra postive will be, not social-----> not moral
(2) morals are not social sometimes [Morals-----> not social], conta postive will be social----> not moral(immoral), which can help to explain answer A.
Now these two meanings are alluding that E must be wrong and A can be right.