Q20 - Social critic: One of the most important ways in which

[sarahhaque]

I found the answer choices difficult to understand. Could you please explain why answer choice D is the correct answer?

Thanks

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

This one is tough, but the more you read language like it, the faster you'll get at sifting through the abstract terminology. The important thing to realize when reading the stimulus is that just because there is a negative effect to moral socialization doesn't mean that the total effect is also negative. The LSAT writer tips his/her hand in the conclusion with the words "net effect."

(A) is off topic. There is no discussion of modification. The conclusion is what has happened in the past. Not what could be the future.
(B) is off course as well. Causality is not the issue here.
(C) is off topic. The conclusion is about what happened in the past - not what could/should be the future.
(D) correctly brings up the difference between partial/total effect. Moral socialization could bring more good than bad because it inhibits immoral behavior in others.
(E) is a tempting answer choice even if you correctly understood the issue. But answer choice (E) goes too far. The argument does not assume there is no possibility of there being any good to come from moral socialization. But rather the argument merely assumes that the bad outweighs the good!

[clairenlee]

I have more specific questions about "translating" the language of the answer choices B and D. It was really difficult for me decide between the choice B and D, but settled on D (so ended up getting it right) but still unsure about exactly why. (Your explanation helped somewhat but I would REALLY appreciate a little more help.) Initially, I thought the stimulus was about causal relationship between moral socialization and its adverse effect on "many", leading the social critic to the conclusion about the adverse net effect. I thought the answer choice B addressed how the causal effect the critic assumes in NOT the case. Obviously I'm wrong in my thinking, but unsure why.

And in regards to the answer choice D--Am I wrong in thinking that "behavior" refers to social moralization, "a certain phenomenon" refers to "deep feelings of guilt and self-loathing...a severe hardship," and "that phenomenon" refers to the same? So that moral socialization, in fact, CAN reduce the total amount of suffering?

Thanks so much!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Answer choice (B) can definitely be a tempting answer choice. Think about it this way. Answer choice (B) would be a good answer if the argument was trying to say that because two things are not perfectly correlated, that they cannot be causally related. This answer choice would then come in and say, "hey, just because they're not correlated, that doesn't mean that there is no causal relationship here." And this would be an effective challenge.

The argument, however, attempts to prove causation, so an answer choice that says that the argument is flawed because it failed to consider that these two things could still be causally related just isn't true. The argument does not fail to consider that possibility; it concludes that possibility.

Answer choice (D) on the other hand addresses another issue going on this argument as well as several other arguments in the same section. So for comparison you might be interested to see how this argument relates to question 16 just on the preceding page. Both of these arguments equate a partial effect for a total effect. Just because moral socialization leads to suffering for some individuals, that does not mean that there is net increase in suffering from moral socialization. Moral socialization could stop some people from doing bad things to others, and while these bad people are suffering, all the good that is accomplished by stopping these bad people could have a positive net effect.

Does that help clear up your question?

[fyami001]

Hello
I understand the overall weakness of the argument: that the negative consequences of moral socialization do not necessarily outweigh possible benefits of this socialization technique: it might stop a child from destroying public property ( the children in Bristol,Manchester and Liverpool who are currently looting and destroying public property come to mind).

However, I still don't understand why "D" is a better answer choice than "C"." D" is so general that it seems vague and almost incomprehensible. However I feel like "C" is on point because it is precise with the weakness--that only addressing the suffering ignores the benefits of moral socialization whereas D on the otherhand is vague and therefore not necessarily correct.

[timmydoeslsat]

Hello
I understand the overall weakness of the argument: that the negative consequences of moral socialization do not necessarily outweigh possible benefits of this socialization technique: it might stop a child from destroying public property ( the children in Bristol,Manchester and Liverpool who are currently looting and destroying public property come to mind).

However, I still don't understand why "D" is a better answer choice than "C"." D" is so general that it seems vague and almost incomprehensible. However I feel like "C" is on point because it is precise with the weakness--that only addressing the suffering ignores the benefits of moral socialization whereas D on the otherhand is vague and therefore not necessarily correct.

I like the real world example on this stimulus.

The reason C is wrong is because it states that the author assumes something SHOULD be changed or eliminated. The author never comes close with his language to suggest or assume that. The author does not state what SHOULD be done.

Rather, the author is simply saying we have some people that have experienced an increase in suffering with this phenomena, therefore it has brought a net effect of increasing the total amount of suffering.

Choice D can be reworded as saying:

The author assumes that just because a behavior leads to an event of increasing suffering in some people that this same behavior could not also lead to a situation in which the net effect was decreased. (This could be true because perhaps for 98% of the people this behavior leads to a decrease of suffering. And the "some people" is only 2%.

[fyami001]

wow! that "should" in answer choice "C" is pretty subtle. Thanks for pointing that out, from the tone of the argument, I totally assumed he was making a recommendation but like you said, he is simply pointing out phenomena.

I'm still a bit foggy on D. Can you tell me if I understand your point correctly? It makes sense to me in the following example:
Lets say Jimmy 5 year old Jimmy burns a snail to death with his magnifying glass and has "deep feelings of guilt and self loathing", Later, however, this leads him to do a good deed by vowing to never torture a snail again. As a result, of doing something positive, he feels about at least a bajillion times better and is no longer suffering. Does this example illustrate what answer choice D and your explanation are trying to convey?

Thank you so much!

[staceyhursh]

Find a flaw is my flaw...

I eliminated A, B, E and chose between C and D.

C makes sense to me so having trouble with why D is correct over C.

[noah]

This is a tough question! Mostly because it's tough to see the gap and, as you noted, there are some tempting answer choices.

The conclusion is that moral socialization has a net effect of increasing suffering?

Why? Because it results in some negative feelings (guilt and self-loathing).

The gap here is that perhaps moral socialization has some seriously positive effects that outweigh those negative ones. For example, moral socialization might keep us from killing each other.

(D) is tough - it's tough to see what it means. In short, it's saying that even though something (moral socialization) might cause some negative effects, it might also reduce those negative effects (i.e. be positive).

As for the other answers:

(A) is out of scope - nobody is talking about modifying any source of a problem. The argument is about the net effect.

(B) is tempting because it's confusing-sounding. It's saying that even though two things may not always happen together, one might still cause the other (or contribute to the causing). Well, that's strange! We know from the premise that moral socialization does cause severe hardship in many people, so the argument isn't overlooking the causation. What makes this answer further tempting is that you start to think "well, couldn't it just be that this socialization isn't causing suffering in tons of folks, even though it's causing it in many?" However, (B) is talking about something else -- it's saying that even though the two phenomena may happen separately, one might cause the other (similar to "hey, you can't say that a butterfly flapping its wings doesn't cause a hurricane, just because the two events occur separately in terms of time and space").

(C) is about whether something should be changed - out of scope. The argument doesn't suggest such a thing. Saying something is "bad" is different than saying we should change it.

(E) is tempting, however it's too strong. The critic doesn't suggest that EVERYONE has a negative reaction to moral socialization. Instead he or she states that there's this reaction in "many" people. It my feel like this answer is the same as (C), however with (E) we don't learn about the overall effect - we only are discussing some people's reactions.

[noah]

In the conclusion the author says the net effect so I assumed that the author has already accounted for the positive effects of moral socialization therefore the negative must outweigh the positive effects.

I chose B because perhaps it isn't the moral socialization that is leading to the increase in suffering but is leading to another factor or phenomenon that is increasing the suffering. I noticed the author was implying causation in the stimulus so as I have learned from Manhattan and other resources is to attack the causation ( can it be reversed, effect occurs without cause occurring, alternative factor)

the main thing was that the auth used the word net effect so that's where my thought process changed in tackling the problem.

I think the crucial bit in your thinking is the part about how you assumed "net" meant positive had been subtracted already.

As for the causation issue, even if the moral socialization was causing suffering through some intermediary step, it still is causing it.

Tell me if that doesn't clear it up.

[randitect]

I chose B and I am still stuck between B and D..the same reasoning seems to support both.

My reasoning for B is such: the argument reasons that because socialization causes shame and therefore suffering in MANY people, it has a net effect of increasing suffering. But just because it CAN cause suffering, doesn't mean it always - or even usually - does. Maybe, in many MORE people, it alleviates suffering, thereby causing no increase in suffering - to the contrary.

B states this, addressing the possibility that a causal relationship does mean that first factor (socialization) is always accompanied by the second factor (suffering).

D, on the other hand, states that the argument assumes that socialization, which leads to suffering, cannot reduce the overall occurrence of suffering. While this may be true according to the same reasoning above, why would this be correct over B? This answer seems a lot more forced to me... the argument provides no reason to believe that socialization would alleviate suffering. It does, however, assume that the two always occur together (B).

Please clarify! Thank you.

[noah]

I chose B and I am still stuck between B and D..the same reasoning seems to support both.

My reasoning for B is such: the argument reasons that because socialization causes shame and therefore suffering in MANY people, it has a net effect of increasing suffering. But just because it CAN cause suffering, doesn't mean it always - or even usually - does. Maybe, in many MORE people, it alleviates suffering, thereby causing no increase in suffering - to the contrary.

B states this, addressing the possibility that a causal relationship does mean that first factor (socialization) is always accompanied by the second factor (suffering).

D, on the other hand, states that the argument assumes that socialization, which leads to suffering, cannot reduce the overall occurrence of suffering. While this may be true according to the same reasoning above, why would this be correct over B? This answer seems a lot more forced to me... the argument provides no reason to believe that socialization would alleviate suffering. It does, however, assume that the two always occur together (B).

Please clarify! Thank you.

I think you're misinterpreting what (B) is saying. I edited my initial explanation to give more detail about that. In short, (B) does not say that one may not cause the other, it's saying that even though they don't happen together it still may be that one causes the other.