June 2007, Sect3, #7

MissLucky
Posts: 903
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:48 pm

June 2007, Sect3, #7

Postby MissLucky » Mon Sep 06, 2010 6:07 pm

Can someone help me understand why (B) fits here?

To me, (B) correct because...

Marla believes a life of moderation requires a person to be "moderate even in one's moderation" whereas Antonio does not NECESSARILY believe that to be the case since "One can live a life of moderation by never deviating from the middle course."

Then again, wouldn't that make (B) outside the scope of Antonio's argument? We don't know what Antonio's views are about what a life of moderation requires of a person. For example, his first sentence is not "One MUST live a life of moderation by never deviating from the middle course." just that "One CAN."

Essentially, how does Antonio have an opinion on (B) - it is never explicitly stated - or is it enough that we know that Antonio does NOT require something of a person pursuing a life of moderation (and that is - to be moderate even in one's moderation as Marla would have)????

Thank you!

User avatar
Atlas LSAT Teacher
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 10:18 am

Re: June 2007, Sect3, #7

Postby Atlas LSAT Teacher » Tue Sep 07, 2010 7:22 pm

To summarize: Antonio states that one can live a life of moderation by staying on the middle course. Maria disagrees. She says that one who stays on the middle course and never takes risks is actually not living a life of moderation (because never taking risks is not, by definition, moderate). Thus, the two disagree over what it means to live a life of moderation. Answer (B) expresses this. Notice that Maria never addresses the rest of Antonio’s argument about all the things that moderate people miss out on.

To speak to your question specifically, I agree with you - we're not sure if Antonio means that the middle road is a requirement or one way to do it. But think of it this way. Antonio says you could do it by doing X. Maria then says, "no, you must do it with Y." Even if Antonio were to agree that Y is a possibility (i.e., he was not stating the middle road is a requirement, as you suggest), then they'd still disagree about what a life of moderation requires. Antonio does not think it requires deviating from the middle course, Maria does.

An analogy:

Tom: Whole milk makes for great ice cream.
Lila: No, you must use half-and-half to have great ice cream!

(B) They disagree about what is required to make great ice cream (Lila thinks that half-and-half is required, Tom does not).

Make sense? Now that I look over your post again, it sounds like I'm confirming your idea there.

Also looks like you know the other ones are wrong, but in case others don't:

(A) is wrong because Maria never discusses whether it is desirable or undesirable to take chances. She only comments on what it means to live a life of moderation.
(C) is incorrect, because other virtues are out of scope.
(D) is incorrect. How often a person ought to deviate from the middle course is out of scope. Only Antonio discusses whether it is desirable to be spontaneous.
(E) is a half-scope answer. Only Antonio discusses whether it is desirable to be spontaneous.

MissLucky
Posts: 903
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:48 pm

Re: June 2007, Sect3, #7

Postby MissLucky » Tue Sep 07, 2010 7:59 pm

Ahh, got it! Thank you for the confirmation and all your help!




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: addie1412, dietcoke1, Google [Bot] and 12 guests