by ManhattanPrepLSAT1 Mon May 14, 2012 2:03 pm
Great discussion! I think I see it a bit differently though, and I'd love to hear what you think.
The discussion so far seems to suggest that as stated in the stimulus neither doctrine in the stimulus is mistaken. But I would suggest that the argument does a pretty good job of showing that the second doctrine is mistaken, but simply fails to establish that the first doctrine is mistaken.
The first doctrine says that an explanation must appeal to economic factors. It does not say that it must appeal to solely economic factors, and so the evidence that there are situations that were due both to economic forces and to the nature of early childhood would not establish the first doctrine to be mistaken. Assuming answer choice (A) though is an assumption of the first doctrine being mistaken.
I do see the second doctrine as having been established to be mistaken. If it attempts to account psychologically for all historical events, the explanation is a psychological one. Which, in light of the evidence would be mistaken since it would have failed to account for the economic forces.
So, when hunting for the assumption, I was already looking for the gap on the way to establishing that the first doctrine was mistaken.
Incorrect Answers
(B) need not be assumed, since the second doctrine could appeal to other psychological factors and still be mistaken. This answer rules out the possibility that the second doctrine appeals to economic factors, but also rules out more than what is needed to establish the conclusion and focuses on the doctrine that had already been established to be mistaken and not the gap in the reasoning.
(C) is irrelevant. No relative comparison as to the impact of these various factors need be assumed.
(D) need not be assumed. We know that no doctrine can appeal to solely economic or psychological factors and still explain all historical phenomena, but why should there be both explanations already made for any given historical event?
(E) places both factors in the explanation to any event, when we need to assume instead that no explanation that appeals solely to economic or to psychological factors will explain all historical phenomena. So, there must be at least one event that requires both economic and psychological explanations, but not that any event requires both.
Let me know what you guys think!
#officialexplanation