Q21 - Ethicist: People who avoid

[linzru86]

I can see how answer choice C relates to the question concerning the condition that those who do not drink simply because they cannot afford to should not be praised, but how do people who have a "disinclination (to drink) that has somehow resulted from an arduous process..." relate to the idea of "overcom(ing) a desire to do something that she or he felt able to afford to do" as C states?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

Those two statements you bring up are pretty darn similar --

"lack the desire...resulted from an arduous process of disciplining oneself to refrain from acting indiscriminately on one's desires" basically means "overcome a desire to do something."

So, if one is worthy of praise for their lack of desire only if they had to overcome that desire, then that would support the idea that one is not worthy of praise unless their lack of desire has come from overcoming desire.

[ginsburgb]

I am still unclear on answer choice C. I think I'm caught up on what "...she or he felt able to do" means. Can you clarify this? Thanks!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

The LSAT will do this regularly on principle questions. We're asked to find a principle in the answer choices that justifies the argument above. I think the statements in the stimulus could only be loosely referred to as an argument

As you scan the answer choices, you're looking to conform to either of the two principles advanced in the argument. Answer choice (C) conforms to the second principle about refraining from acting indiscriminately on one's desires. I do have an issue with answer choice (C) in that I don't see the disinclination resulting from an arduous process.

However, answer choice (A) is the next best answer and it's not very good. Answer choice (A) can be eliminated as the stimulus is about the process by which one chooses to avoid an alcoholic beverage. Answer choice (A) is about the context in which the situation occurs and the consequences that it will bring. I think of it this way, the stimulus is about the past, answer choice (A) is about the present and the future.

This question does not feel appropriate for this part of the LR section, but there are many reasons why a question that allows for such a loose reading of text would appear at Q21.

I hope that helps!

[LSAT-Chang]

Hey Matt!
I was down to (A) and (C), and ultimately picked (A) because I thought the stimulus said that we had to meet BOTH criteria for being praised. The word "Similarly" to me sounded like "In addition"... So I ended up picking (A) because I thought the first part about "consequences" sort of matched up with "this disinclination has somehow resulted from an arduous process of disciplining oneself to refrain from acting indiscriminately on one's desires" and the second part about "social context in which the agent acts" matched up with the "financial means" part in the argument.. If I get into your description of how (A) is present and future whereas the argument is about the past, I feel like I'm more confused.. Not quite 100% sure why (A) wouldn't work in this case.

[timmydoeslsat]

Stimulus:

People who avoid alcohol because it is too expensive---> ~Should be praised

~Result from arduous process (avoiding alcohol)---> ~Should be praised

So, as we can see, we do not know what will give us a situation of what should be praised.

We have two necessary conditions associated with "should be praised" but we do not know when to conclude that we have a situation of "should be praised."

Answer choice C:

Should be praised ---> (To adopt behavior ---> Overcome desire to do something they could afford)

We can see the contrapositive of this would allow us to validly conclude "should not be praised."

[LSAT-Chang]

Thanks timmy! What would you say is wrong with (A)? I thought "consequences" and "social context" matched up with the stimulus..

[timmydoeslsat]

We are trying to justify ~Should be praised.

The only way for A to work is to somehow get a contrapositive of it to reach that negated term.

A) Should be praised ---> Function of both social context and consequences

I do not see how we can deny that necessary condition to reach ~Should be praised.

[geverett]

Also there is no way we can infer anything about social contexts and consequences from the stimulus.

[nflamel69]

I eliminated A on the basis of consequences because I fail to see how does the consequences of the behavior like A suggested would play any role in the original argument. The argument never implied any consequences from avoiding alcoholic beverages, can someone point me where did they see the consequences part?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

The argument discusses a disinclination to consume alcohol. And it suggests that the disinclination might result from an arduous process of disciplining oneself. When a factor is the result of something else, that factor is a consequence of that something else.

"as a result of" = "as a consequence of"

Hope that helps!

[kaseyb002]

I eliminated (A) on the grounds that if it were true, it is not enough to justify the claim. Even if those two factors are needed, it doesn't tell us the actual conditions for praising/not praising someone's action.

[acechaowang]

I think kaseyb002 made a great point. A is wrong because it does not tell us the standards of praising someone. I actually can see C address both parts in the stimulus since it touches on 1: someone has to feel that she or he is able to do something 2: overcome a desire to do something=arduous process of disciplining oneself to refrain from acting indiscriminately on one's desires.

[nflamel69]

Matt, sorry to be to persistent with this questions. But I still couldn't see the consequences that A is mentioning. I can relate behavior = avoid alcohol. But the answer says its consequences, which to me refers to the consequences of avoiding alcohol, not which consequenctly resulting avoiding alcohol, which is what you are suggesting I think..

[uhdang]

I agree with nflamel69 on what "consequences" refer to here. I, too, think that consequences here is what comes from "avoiding alcohol" and the stimulus does not have the reference to this consequences, which is why A) is INCORRECT.