Top Law Schools

Guys -Here is a question I've been struggling to decipher (not as much what the answer is, but WHY the answer is correct - - I got this correct but it was an educated guess, not a clear understanding of how to get this justify problem correct). My contenders are embolden.

Historian: It is unlikely that someone would see history as the working out of moral themes unless he or she held clear and unambiguous moral beliefs. However, one's inclination to morally judge human behavior decreases as one's knowledge of history increases. Consequently, the more history a person knows, the less likely that person is to view history as the working out of moral themes.

The conclusion of the argument is properly drawn if which one of the following is assumed:

A) Historical events that fail to elicit moral disapproval are generally not considered to exemplify a moral theme.

B) The less inclined one is to morally judge human behavior, the less likely it is that one holds clear and unambiguous moral beliefs.

C) Only those who do not understand history attribute moral significance to historical events.

D) The more clear an unambiguous one's moral beliefs, the more likely one is to view history as the working out of moral themes.

E) People tend to be less objective regarding a subject about which they possess extensive knowledge than regarding a subject about which they do no posses extensive knowledge.

The problem is wordy, but can be looked at as straightforward conditional reasoning problem (with a small caveat).

Let 'likely to see history as the working of of moral themes' be MT.
Let 'clear and unambiguous moral beliefs' be CU.
Let 'knowledge of history increases' be KH.
Let 'inclination to morally judge human behavior decreases' be MJ.

The first premise of the argument is: MT --> CU. This is just a clear translation of the unless statement.
The second premise is: KH --> MJ. Not a direct translation, but captures the same idea.
The conclusion is: KH --> not-MT.

The link that is needed then is clearly: MJ --> not-CU.

The caveat: The argument is better characterized using predicate logic - note that the stimulus mentions 'one' and 'someone' whereas the premises don't mention anyone at all. But as you can see, the argument as characterized works out good enough.

EDIT: In case it is not clear, the answer then should be (B).

THANK YOU! This is a very clear breakdown for me and now I seem to understand this better. I guess I didn't see the clear connection between MT/MJ and of course (morality wasn't used in the same manner in each), when these get very wordy, diagramming them can be a challenge towards the end of an LSAT LR section, when timing is running out...

Again, it become clear, if you don't diagram on the LSAT you will NOT be successful and score +23 and above on each LR section.