Q25 - Sociologist: Widespread acceptance of

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Good question.

This is an assumption question and there's a gap in the reasoning! The easiest way to narrow down the answer choices is to notice the new term in the conclusion - legislators proposing laws prohibiting behavior of actions that are only harmful to themselves.

On assumption questions, when there's a new term in the conclusion, it's not a bad idea to scan the answer choices and see how many discuss the new term. Answer choice (E) is the only one that ties this term back into the evidence and is the correct answer.

Evidence
1. Assumptions that appear to guide legislators will often become widely accepted.
2. Widespread acceptance of the idea is injurious to democracy.

Conclusion
If the legislators don't want to harm democracy, they should not pass laws prohibiting behavior of actions that are only harmful to those people engaging in the behavior.

Gap
If the legislators pass laws prohibiting behavior of actions that are only harmful to those people engaging in the behavior, then the legislators will appear to be guided by the assumption that individuals are incapable of looking after their own welfare. Best expressed in answer choice (E).

(A) is not assumed. The conclusion does not assume that legislators have favorable attitudes towards democracy.
(B) is an interesting play on the fact that legislators are typically considered prominent and powerful, but is not assumed.
(C) is the closest of the incorrect answer choices. But the last part about these legislators also appearing to value democracy is not required to establish the conclusion.
(D) is irrelevant. The argument is only regarding behavior that only harms the person engaging in the behavior, not behavior that also harms others.

Does that help clear this one up?


#officialexplanation

[gyfirefire]

Is there anyone who can help me with this problem? I got it right by the process of elimination, but couldn't figure out what "assumpitons" in the last sentence refer to and so don't know why (E) is correct.

Thank you very much in advance.

[gyfirefire]

Got it. Thanks a lot!

[Shiggins]

I was able to bring it down to choice E by looking at the new term from the conclusion, but I am still having trouble breaking all the negatives in the conclusion down. If you can explain a possible best case or method to tackle a sentence like that.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Whenever I see a ton of negatives, I ask myself, "does the sentence contain double-negation?" Sometimes you can reinterpret the sentence in a way that makes more sense. For example:

"Not all of the treatments for cancer are ineffective."

This can be translated, "some of the treatments for cancer are effective."

For answer choice (E), we don't have a statement that can be unwound, so we'll simply have to slow down and ask, "what do they mean?" at each step of the way.

If legislation "prohibits an act" that means that it bans the activity. So lets say that it's prohibited to ride in a car without a seatbelt. The activity of riding in a car without a seatbelt has been prohibited. According to this answer choice, prohibiting an act that can harm only the person committing the act, such as riding in car without a seatbelt, will make the legislator appear to assume that people who ride in cars without a seatbelt are not capable of looking out for their own welfare - that they're simply not responsible.

So you can see that by putting an example on the abstract answer choice, you can get a bit more clarity on the answer choice, but you don't really have time for this on the LSAT. Best advice I can give you is study the LSAT as much as you can - it's simply time on task. Eventually their convoluted way of saying things starts to sound normal - like reading Shakespeare; the first 10 minutes are always awkward, but then eventually it gets better!

Hope that helps!

[Shiggins]

Thank you msherman. Your explanation did help a lot. This was one sentence that I really needed clarity on. Most other double negatives I have been able to handle but this one seemed to require a little more thought about the actors involved to make sense. Thank you.

[zainrizvi]

If (C) didn't contain the "even though" clause would it be correct?

I would think not since the sociologist doesnt have to assume that the legislators OFTEN seem to be guided by that assumption; his necessary assumption is that at least once, legislators were guided by that assumption.


Am I right in my way of thinking?

[zainrizvi]

On further review I think (C) is a wrong answer choice because of the use of "often", instead of "at least once".

Wouldn't clause at the end, however, be relevant because the conclusion only addresses legislators who value democracy??

[Mab6q]

I would really appreciate a better explanation for answer choice C. Although i see how E is clearly better and is the right answer, I'm curious about what makes C wrong. I eliminated C because it said often, which if we negate, we get:

Legislators dont often seem to be guided by the assumption that individuals are incapable of looking after thier own welfare, even though these legislators also seem to value democracy.

The issue with this, imo, is that we don't care about all legislator. We only care about those that propose the legislation, since that is the evidence that is being used in the argument.

Is my reasoning correct here or is there any reason why C is wrong?

[smsotolongo]

(D) is irrelevant. The argument is only regarding behavior that only harms the person engaging in the behavior, not behavior that also harms others.

Does that help clear this one up?

For this question, don't you need the assumption that certain behaviors are only harmful to the individual in order for the argument t be valid? Initially I picked this answer. Now, the error with the response that I can see is "most." Most cases doesn't have to be the case. It can be a few as long as we know and don't create laws in the instances where the behavior is only harmful the individual.

[rinagoldfield]

Hi all,

Mab6q, your reasoning is sound.

(C) is incorrect because it does not connect to the relevant proposed laws. We want to know whether legislators who propose laws prohibiting [X] behavior appear to believe people are incapable of taking care of themselves. It doesn’t matter how “legislators often seem” in general.

As for (D): smsotolongo asks “ don't you need the assumption that certain behaviors are only harmful to the individual ?” That is correct. However, that’s not what C says – C says MOST behavior that is harmful to yourself is only harmful to yourself. That is too strong. We only need to know that SOME behavior that is harmful to yourself is only harmful to yourself.

[donghai819]

Can anyone go over the core in this question? I am still unsure about the last sentence. What kind of role does it play? I know it is a premise, but I don't understand how it is connected with the first sentence and the conclusion?

Thank you.

[Dtodaizzle]

From a common sense stand point, the necessary assumption makes sense.

So because blah blah is injurious to democracy, then legislators should not do something. Why should the legislators not do something? Because it is injurious to democracy.

So if the legislator does do that “something,” then it is blah blah injurious to democracy.

But what is the correct way to diagram using logic?

A -> -B.

B -> -A? (But this can’t be right, because “-A” would mean that blah blah is not injurious to democracy…

[maryadkins]

I wouldn't use conditional logic on this question. I don't think it applies closely enough to be accurate. You have concepts like "widespread acceptance" and "assumptions that appear," which will "often" become widely accepted (which doesn't even mean that they will). There's a lot of room for error when you try to plug these into "if-then" statements.

For instance, this is not necessarily true:

So if the legislator does do that “something,” then it is blah blah injurious to democracy.

Rather, widespread acceptance of the assumption that might be underlying the "something" will be injurious. That's different.

I'd look for gaps per the discussion above/what Matt suggested and tackle it that way!

[Jesslxh]

I'm confused with the wording of the second sentence. ' So legislators who value democracy should not propose any law prohibiting behaviour that is not harmful to anyone besides the person engaging in it.'

In other words, legislator should not pass any law banning riding without a seatbelt. Doesn't that means legislator should endorse riding without a seatbelt ? This is contrary to what answer E proposes. I felt like I must have misunderstood something in the stimulus because the answer choice seems fine with me and I totally understand why E is correct. I just don't understand what the wording of the second sentence in the stimulus implies.

Please help me ! This is the hardest question to understand so far!

[annalidia.kessler]

I'm confused with the wording of the second sentence. ' So legislators who value democracy should not propose any law prohibiting behaviour that is not harmful to anyone besides the person engaging in it.'

In other words, legislator should not pass any law banning riding without a seatbelt. Doesn't that means legislator should endorse riding without a seatbelt ? This is contrary to what answer E proposes. I felt like I must have misunderstood something in the stimulus because the answer choice seems fine with me and I totally understand why E is correct. I just don't understand what the wording of the second sentence in the stimulus implies.

Please help me ! This is the hardest question to understand so far!

Jesslxh,

If a certain action performed by someone causes no harm to anyone but the individual performing it, it should not be made illegal. Your example of riding without a seat belt is correct. It only harms the person not wearing it and no one else. Sure, it's recommended to wear one for your own safety, but should it be illegal not to wear one? According to this argument, not so much. Not passing a law doesn't necessarily mean endorsing the opposite; a legislator may abstain or be neutral. Just because I don't agree with something doesn't force me to endorse the opposite action.
To rephrase the second sentence: Legislators who value democracy shouldn't prohibit an action that harms only the individual partaking in it. If no one else is affected by your actions, they shouldn't be illegal.

[LeonC641]

I would like to chime in with my thoughts about why (C) is wrong.

1. I believe C is only repeating the premise of the stimulus.

Stimulus: "After all, the assumptions that appear to guide legislators will often become widely accepted." The assumption here refers to "the idea that individuals are incapable of looking after their own welfare".

Then we look at C: "legislators often seem to be guided by the assumption that individuals are incapable of looking after their own welfare" So, I think what C does is only to repeat the stated premise. So, it's not an NA.

2. C is irrelevant to the GAP in the stimulus.

Even though some might say the term "the assumption" in the last sentence is not explicitly mentioned as "individuals are incapable of looking after their own welfare". But still, C is wrong.

After negating C, we basically have: the idea individuals are incapable of looking after their own welfare is rarely a guiding principle for legislators.

But it's not what the stimulus cares about. Because the stimulus only cases "the assumptions that appear to guide legislators" If some ideas that do not seem to guide legislator, these ideas are not the assumptions being concerned here.

Please let me know If any parts of my thoughts are wrong. I will really appreciate your comments. I hope my line of thought could help someone who would be confused by C.

[MollyB884]

I am confused why we should not use conditional logic in this instance. It seems like that would be the best way to understand the assumption required.

Also, I am seeing the method of establishing the new term in the conclusion and using that term to eliminate answer choices. When and how can that method be applied? What typed of question stems/stimuli?

Thanks!

[Misti Duvall]

I am confused why we should not use conditional logic in this instance. It seems like that would be the best way to understand the assumption required.

Also, I am seeing the method of establishing the new term in the conclusion and using that term to eliminate answer choices. When and how can that method be applied? What typed of question stems/stimuli?

Thanks!

You could use conditional logic if it helps to understand the argument better. Just make sure you make note of the "should" and "often."

Looking for the new concept in the conclusion can help find the gap in any LR argument. You can think of the new concept as the jump the conclusion makes, and often the thing that is not quite supported by the premise(s). For ex: My cat is 10 years old, therefore she can fly. The new concept in the conclusion is that she can fly, and the gap is between my cat being 10 and being able to fly. It's a useful tool for really any assumption family question.