Q16 - what's the ethicist's conclusion?

[legalredical]

At first, I thought the ethicist's conclusion is the second sentence. But the correct answer choice seems to imply that the ethicist' point is "it's not enough to ban cloning on the ground of vanity" - which is not explicitly stated in the ethicist's argument?
does this mean sometime the argument's conclusion is implicit?
Thanks!!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Yes, it is absolutely possible for the main conclusion of the argument to be implicit. Frequently, questions that ask you to identify the conclusion will have implicit conclusions. This is a fellow cousin of the Identify the Conclusion question - a Determine the Function question.

The question asks about the claim that it is not illegal to use one person as a vehicle for the ambitions of another. It does sound like it is supported by the claims that follow, but on second look, they are simply used in conjunction with this claim.

The argument is essentially an appeal to an analogy. It says that because you wouldn't ban some forms of human control over each other, you shouldn't control this other form of human control. Thus, the conclusion is the repudiation of the notion that one should ban cloning on the grounds that clones would exist to indulge the vanity of the "originals." And the claim about what is not illegal, is used to connect the other actions to cloning - it serves to support the implied conclusion best expressed in answer choice (D).

(A) is unsupported. That conclusion is not in the argument.
(B) has the wrong the conclusion. The argument is saying because it's not wrong for people to push their children into things that's why you shouldn't stop cloning either: so wrong conclusion.
(C) is unsupported. No such implication would exist between those claims.
(E) is contradicted. The author uses that legal position to advance another position.

Does that answer your question?? I know you probably didn't need all that, but I wanted to put it up for future readers.

[legalredical]

Thanks a lot! Your explanation is so clear and helpful!

Yes, it is absolutely possible for the main conclusion of the argument to be implicit. Frequently, questions that ask you to identify the conclusion will have implicit conclusions. This is a fellow cousin of the Identify the Conclusion question - a Determine the Function question.

The question asks about the claim that it is not illegal to use one person as a vehicle for the ambitions of another. It does sound like it is supported by the claims that follow, but on second look, they are simply used in conjunction with this claim.

The argument is essentially an appeal to an analogy. It says that because you wouldn't ban some forms of human control over each other, you shouldn't control this other form of human control. Thus, the conclusion is the repudiation of the notion that one should ban cloning on the grounds that clones would exist to indulge the vanity of the "originals." And the claim about what is not illegal, is used to connect the other actions to cloning - it serves to support the implied conclusion best expressed in answer choice (D).

(A) is unsupported. That conclusion is not in the argument.
(B) has the wrong the conclusion. The argument is saying because it's not wrong for people to push their children into things that's why you shouldn't stop cloning either: so wrong conclusion.
(C) is unsupported. No such implication would exist between those claims.
(E) is contradicted. The author uses that legal position to advance another position.

Does that answer your question?? I know you probably didn't need all that, but I wanted to put it up for future readers.