I chose (D) thinking they are talking about 2 different obligations (obligations from different positions)...why is (C) the answer?
Thank you
LSAT Forum
6 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- tzyc
-
Thanks Received: 0
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 323
- Joined: May 27th, 2012
- Most Thankful
-
- sumukh09
-
Thanks Received: 139
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 327
- Joined: June 03rd, 2012
- This post thanked 1 time.
- Most Thanked
- First Responder
Re: Q14 - Zachary: One would have to
Moral obligation is actually used consistently in both of their arguments; Zachary describes his position of what is meant for one to have a moral obligation and Cynthia uses his delineation to make an illustration of where his description would be inapplicable ie) a situation where Zachary's principle of moral obligation would be in conflict.
C is correct because it describes the oversight by Zachary with respect to his conditions on what moral obligation entails
D says that moral obligation is understood differently by different people which is absolutely not the case as this is not suggested by Cynthia's response
C is correct because it describes the oversight by Zachary with respect to his conditions on what moral obligation entails
D says that moral obligation is understood differently by different people which is absolutely not the case as this is not suggested by Cynthia's response
-
- maryadkins
-
Thanks Received: 641
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 1261
- Joined: March 23rd, 2011
- This post thanked 1 time.
Re: Q14 - Zachary: One would have to
Good discussion, here.
tz_strawberry, think about it this way: they aren't understanding "moral obligation" differently just because they have conflicting obligations. If I feel obligated to preach that global warming doesn't exist and you feel obligated to preach that it does, we don't disagree over what "obligation" means, we just disagree over what we believe is right. This is why (D) is wrong.
What Cynthia does is show that Zach's principle leads to absurdity. And that's what (C) expresses.
(A) is too sweeping--and isn't what she does.
(B) is likewise to general. Cynthia doesn't argue that the concepts of right and duty shouldn't be taken seriously as a general matter.
(E) too narrow? No.
tz_strawberry, think about it this way: they aren't understanding "moral obligation" differently just because they have conflicting obligations. If I feel obligated to preach that global warming doesn't exist and you feel obligated to preach that it does, we don't disagree over what "obligation" means, we just disagree over what we believe is right. This is why (D) is wrong.
What Cynthia does is show that Zach's principle leads to absurdity. And that's what (C) expresses.
(A) is too sweeping--and isn't what she does.
(B) is likewise to general. Cynthia doesn't argue that the concepts of right and duty shouldn't be taken seriously as a general matter.
(E) too narrow? No.
-
- seychelles1718
-
Thanks Received: 0
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 136
- Joined: November 01st, 2015
Re: Q14 - Zachary: One would have to
maryadkins Wrote:Good discussion, here.
tz_strawberry, think about it this way: they aren't understanding "moral obligation" differently just because they have conflicting obligations. If I feel obligated to preach that global warming doesn't exist and you feel obligated to preach that it does, we don't disagree over what "obligation" means, we just disagree over what we believe is right. This is why (D) is wrong.
What Cynthia does is show that Zach's principle leads to absurdity. And that's what (C) expresses.
(A) is too sweeping--and isn't what she does.
(B) is likewise to general. Cynthia doesn't argue that the concepts of right and duty shouldn't be taken seriously as a general matter.
(E) too narrow? No.
Can anyone explain why E is wrong? I was tempted by E because I thought Cynthia is saying Zachary's understanding of moral obligation is limited (or too narrow) to explain the artist example of Cynthia's argument.
Also, how come A is too broad to be the answer? Isn't C also quite broad and general?
Thanks in advance for your help!
-
- maryadkins
-
Thanks Received: 641
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 1261
- Joined: March 23rd, 2011
Re: Q14 - Zachary: One would have to
I think your problem lies in your understand of Cynthia's argument, which, fair enough, is confusing!
She's saying that Zachary's principle basically leads to absurdity. It contradicts itself. In the example, she gives, there is this artist who had a RIGHT to stop something but also NO right to do it (it's very weird, the example). If this confuses you, I'm with you. The only thing you have to understand is that Cynthia is showing that Zachary's principle conflicts with itself. That's what (C) is saying: it is untenable on its own terms.
Once you understand this, (A) and (E) are easier to eliminate. Neither is saying this. (E) brings up narrowness. How is that the same as internal conflict? It's not. (This is important to grasp.) And to address your question about (A), she isn't saying the concept of moral obligation PERIOD is incoherent. She's saying that Zach's principle for it is.
She's saying that Zachary's principle basically leads to absurdity. It contradicts itself. In the example, she gives, there is this artist who had a RIGHT to stop something but also NO right to do it (it's very weird, the example). If this confuses you, I'm with you. The only thing you have to understand is that Cynthia is showing that Zachary's principle conflicts with itself. That's what (C) is saying: it is untenable on its own terms.
Once you understand this, (A) and (E) are easier to eliminate. Neither is saying this. (E) brings up narrowness. How is that the same as internal conflict? It's not. (This is important to grasp.) And to address your question about (A), she isn't saying the concept of moral obligation PERIOD is incoherent. She's saying that Zach's principle for it is.
-
- LuW218
-
Thanks Received: 0
-
Vinny Gambini
- Posts: 1
- Joined: April 01st, 2019
Re: Q14 - Zachary: One would have to
two clues for this question:
1. C's last sentence: "according to your principle, that the right and the duty to stop and no right to stop. This is a logical flaw in C's argument.
2. "we can think like this: why C's two people have the problem WHEN APPLIED Z'S PRINCIPLE?
one has the duty to pursue their action but "one has no right to stop the other one." (the last sentence of Z's). If he/ she has the right/duty to pursue the action, he/she has to stop. But he/she has no right to stop. How they will perform their duty or right?
(D) because they have a different understanding of "moral obligation". I would say yes, they have a different understanding of moral obligation. For a specific work of art, the artist feels morally obligated to protect it and the antipornography feels morally obligated to destroy it. BUT that is not C's point. If not apply Z's logical wrong principle, there would be no problem.
1. C's last sentence: "according to your principle, that the right and the duty to stop and no right to stop. This is a logical flaw in C's argument.
2. "we can think like this: why C's two people have the problem WHEN APPLIED Z'S PRINCIPLE?
one has the duty to pursue their action but "one has no right to stop the other one." (the last sentence of Z's). If he/ she has the right/duty to pursue the action, he/she has to stop. But he/she has no right to stop. How they will perform their duty or right?
(D) because they have a different understanding of "moral obligation". I would say yes, they have a different understanding of moral obligation. For a specific work of art, the artist feels morally obligated to protect it and the antipornography feels morally obligated to destroy it. BUT that is not C's point. If not apply Z's logical wrong principle, there would be no problem.
6 posts Page 1 of 1