LSAT Forum
4 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- noah
-
Thanks Received: 1192
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 1541
- Joined: February 11th, 2009
- This post thanked 3 times.
Re: PT52, S4, Q23 - By attributing to commentators
The support for (A) is right around line 17. This is an inference question - it's asking for a close interpretation of the text.
When the author says that the implications of philosophical anarchism are "counterintuitive", he's explaining why some people disagree with the theory. Notice that the author frames it as what they "take to be" the implications. The rest of the passage goes on to explain why those implications are not actually implied. So, the author isn't arguing that the implications are not counterintuitive, just that the implications do not validly flow from the theory.
(A) offers a definition of "counterintuitive" that works well - if the word is used to mean that "the implications conflict with some commonly held beliefs", then it explains why the critics of philosophical anarchism would feel they way they do. Those implications go against what they believe. Be careful to remember that we're talking about what the commentators think, not the author (who goes on to dismiss the commentators' criticisms).
Looking at the wrong answers, which may be an easier way to arrive at (A):
(B) is jumping the gun. The author isn't yet discussing the validity of the implications. We're asked to explain what the commentators are thinking, not why the author dismisses their opinions. Furthermore, the passage never refers to empirical evidence.
(C) is similar to (B). In the part we're asked about, we need to identify why the critics don't like philosophical anarchism. (C) is discussing why the author dismisses their criticisms.
(D) is wrong because there's no discussion of the relationship between the two alleged implications.
(E) is similar to (B) and (C) in that this better describes the author's argument against the commentators' criticisms. Another way to look at this answer is that "counterintuitive" does not have anything to do with logic; it refers to something going against intuition. The commentators are pointing out that the implications are ones they disagree with, not that those implications have some logical flaws in them (it's the author who gets into the issue of the logical flaws--but of the argument that philosophical anarchism has those implications).
Does that clear it up?
When the author says that the implications of philosophical anarchism are "counterintuitive", he's explaining why some people disagree with the theory. Notice that the author frames it as what they "take to be" the implications. The rest of the passage goes on to explain why those implications are not actually implied. So, the author isn't arguing that the implications are not counterintuitive, just that the implications do not validly flow from the theory.
(A) offers a definition of "counterintuitive" that works well - if the word is used to mean that "the implications conflict with some commonly held beliefs", then it explains why the critics of philosophical anarchism would feel they way they do. Those implications go against what they believe. Be careful to remember that we're talking about what the commentators think, not the author (who goes on to dismiss the commentators' criticisms).
Looking at the wrong answers, which may be an easier way to arrive at (A):
(B) is jumping the gun. The author isn't yet discussing the validity of the implications. We're asked to explain what the commentators are thinking, not why the author dismisses their opinions. Furthermore, the passage never refers to empirical evidence.
(C) is similar to (B). In the part we're asked about, we need to identify why the critics don't like philosophical anarchism. (C) is discussing why the author dismisses their criticisms.
(D) is wrong because there's no discussion of the relationship between the two alleged implications.
(E) is similar to (B) and (C) in that this better describes the author's argument against the commentators' criticisms. Another way to look at this answer is that "counterintuitive" does not have anything to do with logic; it refers to something going against intuition. The commentators are pointing out that the implications are ones they disagree with, not that those implications have some logical flaws in them (it's the author who gets into the issue of the logical flaws--but of the argument that philosophical anarchism has those implications).
Does that clear it up?
4 posts Page 1 of 1