Top Law Schools

Two Questions:

Question #1


I understand that should is language of a prescriptive sense.

I question if it is valid to ever use should without having a principle to guide when "something" should be done.

Here is a question I ask myself: "You have two options to choose from, A or B. A will cause more damage than B. Therefore, B should be done.

I think that conclusion is invalid. Just because something will cause more damage than something does not necessarily mean that the other option should be done.


Question #2


My other question is about the word best. Such as when an answer choice says something is "the best way."

I would like to bring a hypothetical situation here. Lets say that there are three different ways to assemble a car : A, B, and C. Lets say that A's way is faster and less costly than the other two. Is that enough grounds to deem it the best way to assemble a car?

Also, even if it was enough grounds, could you really say it is the best way? Perhaps there is an undiscovered fourth way of assembling cars, D, that is better. Would the future way of doing things have an impact on labeling something the best, or does best only refer to the current time as things are now?

Edited below

dakatz wrote:"Should" and "best" are both words of opinion. Nothing can deductively lead you to either word because neither have any actual meaning aside from an expression of opinion.

That's a little hasty. Often arguments contain judgments as premises. When that is the case, other judgments can be inferred from them. Without appeal to such premises, however, you are right.

suspicious android wrote:

dakatz wrote:"Should" and "best" are both words of opinion. Nothing can deductively lead you to either word because neither have any actual meaning aside from an expression of opinion.

That's a little hasty. Often arguments contain judgments as premises. When that is the case, other judgments can be inferred from them. Without appeal to such premises, however, you are right.

I never said that judgments such as "best" and "should" can't serve as premises. All I said is that there is no set of objective facts that could lead you to a conclusion of "should" or "best" because it would just be an opinion.

dakatz wrote: All I said is that there is no set of objective facts that could lead you to a conclusion of "should" or "best".

That's not what you said.

suspicious android wrote:

dakatz wrote: All I said is that there is no set of objective facts that could lead you to a conclusion of "should" or "best".

That's not what you said.

You're right. I originally said "nothing can lead to either word". My mistake.

secretad wrote:Two Questions:

Question #1


I understand that should is language of a prescriptive sense.

I question if it is valid to ever use should without having a principle to guide when "something" should be done.

Here is a question I ask myself: "You have two options to choose from, A or B. A will cause more damage than B. Therefore, B should be done.

I think that conclusion is invalid. Just because something will cause more damage than something does not necessarily mean that the other option should be done.


Question #2


My other question is about the word best. Such as when an answer choice says something is "the best way."

I would like to bring a hypothetical situation here. Lets say that there are three different ways to assemble a car : A, B, and C. Lets say that A's way is faster and less costly than the other two. Is that enough grounds to deem it the best way to assemble a car?

Also, even if it was enough grounds, could you really say it is the best way? Perhaps there is an undiscovered fourth way of assembling cars, D, that is better. Would the future way of doing things have an impact on labeling something the best, or does best only refer to the current time as things are now?

Bump for answers on these. This is important in LSAT knowledge I believe and I cannot find anything about it, not even in my LR Bible.

secretad wrote:

secretad wrote:Two Questions:

Question #1


I understand that should is language of a prescriptive sense.

I question if it is valid to ever use should without having a principle to guide when "something" should be done.

Here is a question I ask myself: "You have two options to choose from, A or B. A will cause more damage than B. Therefore, B should be done.

I think that conclusion is invalid. Just because something will cause more damage than something does not necessarily mean that the other option should be done.


Question #2


My other question is about the word best. Such as when an answer choice says something is "the best way."

I would like to bring a hypothetical situation here. Lets say that there are three different ways to assemble a car : A, B, and C. Lets say that A's way is faster and less costly than the other two. Is that enough grounds to deem it the best way to assemble a car?

Also, even if it was enough grounds, could you really say it is the best way? Perhaps there is an undiscovered fourth way of assembling cars, D, that is better. Would the future way of doing things have an impact on labeling something the best, or does best only refer to the current time as things are now?

Bump for answers on these. This is important in LSAT knowledge I believe and I cannot find anything about it, not even in my LR Bible.

Did you not read the thread? We answered it for you. Given nothing more than objective facts among the premises, you CANNOT come to the deduction that something "should" be done or is the "best" choice. However, the premises specifically tell you that something is the "best", then you utilize whatever premises you are given. Your 2 questions both involve a deduction of "should" or "best" based on objective facts, which cannot be done on the LSAT.

this is the goddamn best shoulddig evaaar!!

secretad wrote:Here is a question I ask myself: "You have two options to choose from, A or B. A will cause more damage than B. Therefore, B should be done.

I think that conclusion is invalid. Just because something will cause more damage than something does not necessarily mean that the other option should be done.

Obviously. It assumes that, when given the choice between two things, one should do that which causes less damage. You'll see arguments like this a lot in principle justify questions.

Lets say that there are three different ways to assemble a car : A, B, and C. Lets say that A's way is faster and less costly than the other two. Is that enough grounds to deem it the best way to assemble a car?

No.

Also, even if it was enough grounds, could you really say it is the best way?

This question answers itself.

Perhaps there is an undiscovered fourth way of assembling cars, D, that is better. Would the future way of doing things have an impact on labeling something the best, or does best only refer to the current time as things are now?

I would think "best" has to refer to things at present (or in the past), otherwise you could never use the word for fear of something better down the road. But that's not why the conclusion "A is the best way to assemble a car" is flawed. Like the example with "should," you would need a premise defining the criteria for "best."

EarlCat wrote: I would think "best" has to refer to things at present (or in the past), otherwise you could never use the word for fear of something better down the road. But that's not why the conclusion "A is the best way to assemble a car" is flawed. Like the example with "should," you would need a premise defining the criteria for "best."

I wish I could remember which PrepTest this question came from, but I remember it from previous studies of logical reasoning. It was, I think, a most strongly supported type question, where the answer choice was about how somebody "should go to jail" from a stimulus that talked about how some kind of people could not be successfully rehabilitated. I believe the stimulus gave two options. It, in a way, disputes what has been presented to me in this thread. Just because somebody cannot be rehabilitated does not mean that they SHOULD go to jail.

I will attempt to find that question so you can look at it.

secretad wrote:I will attempt to find that question so you can look at it.

Trust me, there is no question on the LSAT that would contradict the lessons of this thread. Keep in mind, questions that using phrasing like "most strongly support" or "are most supported by" do not need to be logically perfect arguments. If a prisoner really cannot be rehabilitated, that constitutes support for the idea that he should go to jail. It's not a logically valid argument, but the question stem will often not ask for that.