Q15 - Editorial: The threat of harsh

[yahoo]

Can someone please explain this question. I'm lost. Thanks

[aileenann]

This is an assumption question - and more specifically since they ask for an assumption that is "required" we know that it is seeking a necessary assumption. Since the question is seeking a necessary assumption, we need to find the assumption that is absolutely, positively logically necessary for the argument to hold water.

Another way of saying that it's absolutely logically necessary is that if it is not true, the argument does not hold water. Which means that if we negate an answer choice and it is the correct answer choice, the negated answer choice will pulverize the correct answer. For more on negating, I'd recommend our blog posting on this: http://www.atlaslsat.com/blog/index.php ... -the-lsat/

Anyways, let's look at the specifics of this question. The argument essentially states that when we get punished we don't feel shame, even though shame seems to be often what keeps us from hurting other people. The argument thus concludes that increasing punishment may decrease our care for others.

If you notice some sort of logical gap in the argument, great! That shows that you have really understood it and know how it is working. If you don't notice a logical gap, no biggie. Working by process of elimination we should be reading through all of the answer choices anyway, not just cherry picking what we like after reading only half the answer choices!

Let's take a look at each of the answers, thinking of this as a first pass through.

(A) is out of scope. We are not talking about the morality of an action but rather what people do. Eliminate it.

(B) has all the words I also saw in the argument, so it's right on in terms of scope.

(C) is out of scope. We have not seen anything about people being concerned about their own well being. Eliminate it.

(D) is out of scope. We haven't talked about threats of punishment v. punishment. Eliminate it.

(E) is a strong generalization - the "everybody" makes me nervous. Still, I'll keep it on this first pass.

This leaves me with (B) & (E). I'll try to figure out why one of these is wrong or why one is correct.

Let's go back to (E). Do I really need it to be true that everyone can feel guilt or shame? Not really. This is a probabilistic argument, talking only about tendencies and not about absolutes. I don't need this.

So by process of elimination, the answer must be (B). But let's think about why this would be.

(B) actually points out something tricky - and to be honest something I am not sure I would have noticed right off the bat on an exam question. In particular, the argument goes from talking about transgressions in the premises to talking about ignoring the welfare of others. But this is the LSAT and I can't bring in outside knowledge, so I don't necessarily know that these two categories overlap. In fact, the author is assuming that they do. (B) identifies this assumption.

I hope this helps. Please feel free to reach out if you have any follow up questions!

[rsmorale]

Thanks for the helpful overview!

I also wanted to add that I eliminated E because we don't know anything nor do we care about the severity of transgressions.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Nice catch on language there. Yeah, the LSAT writer switched from severe punishments in the stimulus to severe transgressions in answer choice (E).

[jamiejames]

Something else to consider, and I know it's one of the quirks and not 100% true all the time, but I always look for an answer in necessary assumptions questions that contain the words "at least some" or "at least one." I then negate the answer, and if it destroys the conclusion, then I've saved myself a lot of work. Just a quick tip

[sch6les]

I don't see why (B) is necessary.

The necessary assumption is: increase tendency to commit transgression => increase tendency to ignore the welfare of others.

My qualm is that this doesn't necessarily mean a transgression has to include ignoring the welfare of others.

Let's say I start committing transgressions that don't ignore the welfare of others (say, I keep throwing Frisbees on a California beach without a lifeguard's permission... which is supposedly an actual California law). However, as a result of committing these transgressions, my moral views radically change and I start committing actions that ignore the welfare of others but are not transgressions (say, I keep going around pouring ice water on cats).

In this example, I have fulfilled the necessary assumption the argument requires: my increasing tendency to commit transgressions has increased my tendency to ignore the welfare of others. However, I haven't done what (B) states: I have never committed a transgression that involves ignoring the welfare of others. So, it seems (B) isn't necessary.

[efd628]

Something else to consider, and I know it's one of the quirks and not 100% true all the time, but I always look for an answer in necessary assumptions questions that contain the words "at least some" or "at least one." I then negate the answer, and if it destroys the conclusion, then I've saved myself a lot of work. Just a quick tip

OK. so the negation of B would be:

No actions that involve ignoring the welfare of others are transgressions

or

At least some actions that involve ignoring the welfare of others are not transgressions

?? which one is the proper negation and why? Thanks.

[ohthatpatrick]

To negate something is to contradict it.

Negating "X" is the same as saying "It is not true that X".

For most sentences, the truth value hinges on the main verb.

example:
eating pennies gives you a sick stomach.

Negation:
eating pennies does not give you a sick stomach.

(Again, you can always default to "It is NOT true that eating pennies gives you a sick stomach".

When a sentence contains a quantity word, the truth value of the sentence normally hinges on that quantity word.

example:
Some of my friends play baseball.

Negating the verb:
Some of my friends do not play baseball

Does that contradict the original statement?

Of course not. It's perfectly compatible to have some friends that play baseball and others who don't.

If I say "It is NOT true that some of my friends play baseball", then I'm really just saying "NONE of my friends play baseball".

Those contradict.

Here are quantity words and their negations:
Some / at least / sometimes <--> no, none, never
most / usually (51%+) <---> few, rarely (49%-)
All / always <---> not all, not always

There are four main cases to negate:

1. Quantity Word (negate the quantity word)

2. Negative Phrasing (negate the "ruling out" word)
example: Betting on the Cowboys will not start a nuclear holocaust.
negation: Betting on the Cowboys will start a nuclear holocaust.

3. Main Verb (negate the main verb/adjective)
Do not go to the opposite of the verb/adjective. We did not negate the previous sentence as "eating pennies will give you a PLEASANT FEELING stomach".

4. Conditional Statements
Generally speaking, don't negate a conditional.
A) These answers would almost always be wrong on Nec Assump because they would be way too strong
B) Most people botch negating them (if we're given A -> B, then the negation is simply "if you have A, you might have B, you might have ~B, who knows".)

Just ask yourself if the author's logic really makes the link that the conditional statement uses (and makes the link as strongly and certainly as a conditional statement does).

Hope this helps.

[jdieck]

Wanted to know if this is an okay way to understand the argument/assumption.

Harsher punishments=less guilt=may cause more transgressions (or at least not decrease them) is what we would initially think the conclusion to be.

However, Harsher punishments=less guilt=more ignoring of the welfare of others is what is concluded.

Now we must fill this "gap". So, for the argument to hold water, the ignoring of the welfare of others has to fall under transgressions (or at least some has to fall under transgressions, as said by B). Another way of looking B, through negation, is if no instances of ignoring the welfare of others constitute a transgression, then, why would ignoring the welfare of others amplify? The argument starts to fall apart if we negate B.

[mattFbuelow]

I had difficulty with this problem and I think, maybe like others here, it stemmed from trying to understand this argument as a conditional one instead of a causal one. I think this is something Patrick alluded to in his comment (btw Patrick, as a lurker around here I would just like to thank you for your explanations- I often find them so much more helpful than others). Because the argument is using linkimg terms like "usually", "reduces a peraons tendency to" and "may", we should have picked up that a causal argument is being made. Hope that clears it up for others out there.