Q14 - Eighteenth-century moralist: You

[noah]

While I respond to your point within my answer, I'm going to explain the whole question for anyone reading this later:

The argument concludes that one should never acquire expensive new tastes because they're pricey and because while you're acquiring these new tastes, you may run into things you find gross. The author adds in one last point - that the effort it takes to acquire new expensive tastes shows that those tastes are excessive (apparently reinforcing the fact that the tastes are too pricey).

Since this is a flaw question, we should try to identify some other gaps. I see one between each of the premises and the conclusion: Who says that you should not do things that burden your purse - or excessively expensive things as the final sentence suggests? And who says it's bad to experience gross things? The assumptions, that's who!

The answer, however, plays on a different issue. Are there perhaps not some benefits to acquiring expensive tastes that outweighs the costs? (E) notes that the argument fails to consider that acquiring an expensive taste might actually lead to some benefit.

(A) is tempting because the last sentence repeats an earlier premise. However, the conclusion - that it's unwise to acquire expensive new tastes - is not repeated. For an argument to do what (A) suggests, it would have to sound like: It's unwise to acquire expensive new tastes because among the many possible acquisitions, it is one of those that are unwise. Rather silly sounding!

(B) is out of scope - irresponsibility?

(C) is perhaps tempting - the argument does not define "sensations," however why does it need to define that term? Should an argument have to define every term it employs? And is the word "sensations" actually vague?

(D) is complex - if you struggle to read these correctly, when facing statements such as "mistakes X for Y", think of "The man who mistook his wife for a hat." Clearly the "thing" is actually a wife. In this answer, the thing that is treated as an effect is supposed to actually a cause for the acquisition - but how is being pricey or putting one in danger of experiencing unwanted sensations cause one to acquire something?


#officialexplanation

[mrudula_2005]

Picked (E), but I feel like (A) is accurate as well.

The conclusion here is "You should never make an effort to acquire expensive new tastes" and one of the claims in support of that conclusion is that "the very effort that must be expended in their acquisition attests their superfluity." In this way, I do feel like (A) is on point in stating that the moralist is drawing a conclusion by restating a claim presented in support of that conclusion, the only difference being that the conclusion is framed as a recommendation "you SHOULD" not do something, whereas the statement in question is just a flat out assertion. (but that seems to be a very trivial and minute distinction, since the content in the 2 statements is virtually identical).

Or for (A) to be correct, would the restating need to be even more explicit than it seems right now? What would the stimulus need to say to make (A) correct? Something like this?:

"The effort it takes to acquire expensive new tastes illustrates that it is not needed, since they are a drain on your purse..."etc. (the stimulus would really not make sense this way) but what do you think?

thanks!

[sarahvi]

I chose E by process of elimination but I do not really see how it necessarily a flaw to not mention the other side. If I say "One should not eat meat because our survival does not depend on the consumption of animals and in addition the animals endure much cruelty before being slaughtered", I do not see how that is "vulnerable to criticism" simply because I didn't acknowledge something like "but on the other hand, meat is a complete protein!"??

[yisiyu123]

I chose E by process of elimination but I do not really see how it necessarily a flaw to not mention the other side. If I say "One should not eat meat because our survival does not depend on the consumption of animals and in addition the animals endure much cruelty before being slaughtered", I do not see how that is "vulnerable to criticism" simply because I didn't acknowledge something like "but on the other hand, meat is a complete protein!"??

I totally agree with what you've said and that was also why I eliminated E at first.

But I think what E is trying to say is not that he didn't mention the opposite side but he drew his conclusion without countering the opposite opinion, since he said "NEVER make an effort to acquire"
Even though he added something like "though acquire expensive new tastes will benefit a lot, you should never blahblahblah", it can also be vulnerable to criticism but only on different ground.
I'd like to know your opinion:)

[HGranger]

Think of it this way-- how can you make a strong argument in any context (College papers, political debates, family arguments) without acknowledging that there is always a different perspective? Unless/until you address the possible counter arguments, your reasoning is inherently vulnerable to criticism.

So, regarding the vegetarian example above, who is to say that the protein gained from eating meat doesn't outweigh the (subjective) cons of eating meat? Maybe it doesn't! Maybe you can argue that anything gained from eating meat is not worth it. But if you don't address it, your argument will continue to be vulnerable to those attacks.

[drothhello]

Hi Friends! Here Is My question:

The first statement(conclusion) says: You should never make any effort.

The reasons given are that the effort is a "purse drain" and you might have to deal with obnoxious sensations.

My confusion is that the argument only deals with the effort, not the outcome. So why does the correct answer, E, make the outcome relevant?

I thought that only the effort itself is relevant. That's why I chose A, because it talks about the effort in basically the same way twice.

[sengdykes]

Hello!

I got this question right, however, I am having difficulty understanding answer choice D. Could someone explain what answer choice D is saying in relation to the argument, please?

Thank you.

[ohthatpatrick]

We won't necessarily be able to explain what (D) means "in relation to the argument" because most wrong answers are wrong BECAUSE they have no relation to the argument.

We could start by asking ourselves, "Did the author discuss what causes us to acquire expensive tastes"?

Definitely not. In fact, the correct answer even hints at that omission. The author never discusses why we pursue expensive new tastes (cause) or what satisfaction we might derive from acquiring them (effect).

The author DOES discuss some effects of acquiring expensive new tastes:
drain on your purse / possible exposure to obnoxious sensations

But the author doesn't confuse cause and effect.
Confusing cause and effect is essentially a conditional logic flaw.

Example:
Bee stings invariably result in an itchy patch of skin that people scratch. Barbara has recently been scratching one part of her arm a lot, but she better stop doing so unless she wants to attract bee stings.

Flaw:
Mistakes a cause of scratching for an effect of scratching.

[VickX462]

I think this is a case where anti-conclusion really comes in handy.

The conclusion here is that you should never acquire expensive new tastes. (the modifier "never" makes it sound pretty extreme, huh?)
The premise here is that acquiring expensive tastes (1) drains your purse and (2) may give you gross feeling. The author also argues that the effort of acquiring such taste attests to its superfluidity.

The argument seems pretty airtight...Well, actually not quite if we use the Anti-conclusion. We accept that acquiring expensive new tastes drains your purse and give you gross feeling, but that you should acquire expensive new tastes. How could that be? Because there might be benefits that the author has not considered? (E) is spot-on.

(A) is tempting. But circular reasoning flaw appears very rare as correct answers in LR. Saying that something is superfluous (unnecessary) is different from saying one should not buy such thing.

Imagine yourself walking down the aisle in and you saw a Rolex that you really like. But you already bought an Omega last week! You may say to yourself––buying that Rolex is unnecessary. Does that mean you should never buy that Rolex? Not quite, right?

Hope it helps

[EmilyL849]

Hi, gurus!

So, while I was doing the problem I had trouble eliminating (D).
Although moralist does point out couple of effects (cost, obnoxious sensations, and superfluity)
I thought, ‘what if people pursue expensive tastes because of their superfluity? What if people buy expensive houses to show off?’

So, I wonder the reason why (D) is wrong is because the moralist does not talk about “superfluity” as an effect?

The EFFORT that must be spent to achieve expensive tastes SHOWS their superfluity. Superfluity is not the result of acquisition of expensive tastes, rather it is something that is discovered..? (I’m confused) By having expensive tastes, something is shown, I think it makes sense to understand as an effect. Ex) the effort that must be spent to master LR shows its difficulty. So, LR’s difficulty is an effect of mastering LR. Okay, this does not make sense. The difficulty is what is causing or requiring the effort. Although I feel like I answered my own question, this is a correct understanding of the last sentence of this question? (That superfluity is not an effect?)

Or is it because for (D) to work, we need to take ALL two or possibly three (cost, obnoxious sensations, and superfluity) effects into account? If this is the case, I can understand. Cost, obnoxious sensations as causes of expensive tastes do not make sense.


Thank you as always!!!

[ohthatpatrick]

I, frankly, cannot believe that I was actually able to understand you throughout that.

Yes, you're thinking seems solid.

Your initial assessment was a pretty original take: people attempt to acquire expensive tastes BECAUSE of the superfluity. In primitive times, tribes had these things called potlatches --- a huge feast that they'd invite their neighboring tribes to attend, in order to show off how thriving they were. You may have heard of the term 'conspicuous waste', in reference to this type of thing.

[cough-cough] $5000 bowl of shark fin soup [cough].

As clever as that take is, that's not common sense / common knowledge enough for LSAT to test that possibility without holding our hand more with the answer: "fails to consider that superfluity may be a trait desired by people acquiring expensive new tastes".

But, more importantly, as you worked out ... the cause / effect relationship is "trying to acquire expensive new tastes --> possible exposure to obnoxious sensations."

Trying to acquire these tastes doesn't cause superfluity, it just is an example of superfluity, it possesses the quality of superfluity.

You can hear it as an argument "Because it takes effort, it must be superfluous", but you can't really hear it as causality: "expending effort caused superfluity".

[EmilyL849]

I, frankly, cannot believe that I was actually able to understand you throughout that.

Yes, you're thinking seems solid.

Your initial assessment was a pretty original take: people attempt to acquire expensive tastes BECAUSE of the superfluity. In primitive times, tribes had these things called potlatches --- a huge feast that they'd invite their neighboring tribes to attend, in order to show off how thriving they were. You may have heard of the term 'conspicuous waste', in reference to this type of thing.

[cough-cough] $5000 bowl of shark fin soup [cough].

As clever as that take is, that's not common sense / common knowledge enough for LSAT to test that possibility without holding our hand more with the answer: "fails to consider that superfluity may be a trait desired by people acquiring expensive new tastes".

But, more importantly, as you worked out ... the cause / effect relationship is "trying to acquire expensive new tastes --> possible exposure to obnoxious sensations."

Trying to acquire these tastes doesn't cause superfluity, it just is an example of superfluity, it possesses the quality of superfluity.

You can hear it as an argument "Because it takes effort, it must be superfluous", but you can't really hear it as causality: "expending effort caused superfluity".

Thank you Patrick

Sorry for the confusion and thank you for trying (and succeeding) to understanding me!!
You have no idea how much I appreciate your help in my lsat journey