PT 56 Section 2 No. 17

mz253
Posts: 319
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:18 pm

PT 56 Section 2 No. 17

Postby mz253 » Fri May 28, 2010 7:14 pm

I have no idea how to do this. I eliminated A, D and E, and finally picked C.

can anyone help me on this? thanks!

User avatar
confusedlawyer
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 11:21 am

Re: PT 56 Section 2 No. 17

Postby confusedlawyer » Fri May 28, 2010 8:18 pm

I glanced at the question haven't done this preptest yet. From what I gathered, the first person states that the primary role of the law is to make people more virtuous. The second person responds saying that if that happened, the government would have to decide what is considered virtuousness, and that would be a worse situation than what is currently the case. This is why they disagree over E, the cultivation of virtue should be the primary focus of the law.

Hope that helps

User avatar
zworykin
Posts: 449
Joined: Thu May 20, 2010 4:18 am

Re: PT 56 Section 2 No. 17

Postby zworykin » Mon May 31, 2010 2:44 am

Agreed. Glen says "the role should be to make people virtuous" and Sara responds, "that would be a terrible role for the law because blah blah blah."

The way I figured this one out--and a good way to attack this type of question in general--is by trying to find a clear conclusion in the first argument and then determining if the second argument disagreed with that conclusion. In this case, no. Then I checked for any clear-cut premises in the first argument and checked if the second argument disagreed with any of them. Here I was successful: Glen presented a premise about what an emphasis on the procedural side of law would result in, which Sara did not clearly respond to; next, Glen presented a premise about the role law should play, and Sara clearly disagreed with it.

Often on these questions you can take a sort of high-level overall view of the arguments and find an obvious answer. In other cases, like this particular example, it can be very helpful to break the arguments down piece by piece instead of looking at the big picture.

And, in terms of eliminating options...

A) Neither argument really talks about citizens making good choices.
B) Not a terrible answer at first glance, but while the first argument seems willing to sacrifice protection of individual rights in favor of making people virtuous, the second argument doesn't really compare the two ideas to one another.
C) While Sara clearly believes in this inherent danger, Glen doesn't mention it at all. You'd have to speculate on his opinion, which is risky on these types of questions.
D) Glen says an emphasis on the procedural side leads to protection of rights at the expense of citizens' virtuousness and therefore the emphasis should change (the inference here is that he thinks the government is being overprotective of individual rights, since he's arguing that they focus on something else instead); Sara says that changing the emphasis would be more dangerous than the government being overprotective of individual rights, implicitly agreeing with Glen's premise. We're looking for a disagreement.
E) Good answer. TITCR.

mz253
Posts: 319
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2010 11:18 pm

Re: PT 56 Section 2 No. 17

Postby mz253 » Mon May 31, 2010 10:06 am

thanks! i think i eliminated E because my brain didn't react to "cultivation" ... stupid.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests