Q22 - The justification Helen offers

[mcrittell]

I'm so confused to how E enters the argument, much less how it's correct. Thoughts?

[gilad.bendheim]

If we pretend for a second that this is an assumption question, and ask what assumption allows the conclusion (that it was wrong for mark to lie about his reason for missing the party) to flow logically, we would say something like 'Helen must be correct in her claim that "saying something that is false can never be other than morally wrong."' If saying something false is NOT morally wrong, then perhaps Mark fabricating a story about why he missed the party is not wrong.

Back to question 22, we see that answer (E) has caught this assumption upon which Helen's argument relies. Who is to say that this assumption is correct? Helen is not necessarily a philosopher or expert in morality, so before she makes a blanket statement like this, we should expect her to at least attempt to justify its truth. Because she doesn't do this, answer (E) is correct in saying that the argument is vulnerable to someone disputing the truth of her moral axiom.

Hope this makes sense!

[ohthatpatrick]

This is truly an oddball question, because it's one of the only times I've ever seen an LSAT question attack the truth of a premise.

What Gilad was saying is true, in the sense that in every argument the author is assuming his premises are valid.

However, as LSAT testtakers, that's basically never our concern. 99.999% of the LSAT questions ask you to accept the premises as givens, but dispute the logic the author uses in deriving the conclusion.

In this argument, the original logic is airtight.

Saying something false is always morally wrong.
+
Mark said something false (he said there was an accident, but there was not)
---------------------------------------
Mark did something wrong

We know the argument can't be this valid, since we're being asked to find the Flaw. Yet the reasoning is rock solid.

So this is just an extremely rare instance in which we're allowed to question the validity of a premise. It helps that the premise we're questioning, as Gilad awesomely put it, is Helen's own moral axiom ... her belief. If the premise were something more factual, like something physical or quantitative, then we would almost certainly not be able to dispute it.

If we turn off our LSAT brain for a second and just think of how we would argue with Helen, we would probably say something like "it wasn't wrong for him to lie. He spared his mom the hurt feelings of knowing her son blew off her party. Because the lie was aimed at avoiding suffering, it was okay."

We would also take issue with the fact that Helen's moral axiom is stronger than "it is always wrong to lie". Helen instead says "it is always wrong to say something false". That means that every time a 3rd grader gets a multiplication problem wrong and says 6x7 = 44, that 3rd grader has done something morally wrong.

We normal humans would definitely criticize Helen for such an outlandish overstatement.

My LSAT brain doesn't immediately go there, because it's trained to accept the truth of the premises and dispute the logic. However, in this rare case, the logic was fine, so we were forced to impugn the validity of the premises.

[carly.applebaum]

What is wrong with A? It seems like Helen has missed the fact that there is a difference between Mark saying something false (like the accident) and failing to say something true (forgetting about the party). Not sure if that makes sense, but help?

[anjelica.grace]

What is wrong with A? It seems like Helen has missed the fact that there is a difference between Mark saying something false (like the accident) and failing to say something true (forgetting about the party). Not sure if that makes sense, but help?

I think the reason that (A) is wrong is because while Helen does ignore this distinction, it's not a flaw to do so since such a distinction is irrelevant in this case. The difference between committing a lie and omitting the truth is irrelevant here because Mark is doing the former (tells a lie), not the latter. And Helen accuses him of the former, not the latter. So no logical reason to bring up the latter.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[jgallorealestate]

How do you know that Helen is not the smartest person in the world and a trained philosopher? Helen could be a Supreme Court Justice for all we know. But we don't. You can't assume that. All we know is that her name is Helen. Maybe she had a sex-change and he used to be called Bob. You don't know.

I wouldn't lie to my Mom about forgetting her birthday. You would? I would admit that I was wrong. My Mom actually forgot about my birthday when I was younger and apologized, and like sane people, I forgave her and we moved on.

How is "C" wrong? The qstem asks us to point out the flaw of her justification. Why is her principle wrong? Because it "judges behavior that is outside an individual's control (like learning something new and saying something false about it) according to moral standards (it's not always morally wrong to get the wrong answer) that can properly be applied ONLY to behavior that is within such control."

Basically, it sounds like her justification is wrong because someone is morally wrong for saying something false only if it's within their control. Her justification judges someone's behavior that is outside of their control when she claims "Saying something that is false can never be other than morally wrong" It should say "Saying something that is false can never be other than morally wrong if the person knows that it's false."

[alexg89]

If the premise is what we are saying is wrong here how is B wrong? She assumes Mark had forgotten and ruled out other possibilities such as him disliking his mother, or had some other tragedy come up that wasn't a car accident.

[ohthatpatrick]

Let's go through the other answers so we have a justification on record for why the other 4 answers are incorrect:

A) In order to get the flaw (A) is describing, you'd need an argument like this:

Mark was frantically looking for his car keys, which Leslie had recently seen on the ground by the bathroom. Leslie said nothing, giving the impression she had no idea where Mark's keys were. You should never say something false to another person. Thus, Leslie should have told Mark where she saw his keys.

(A) would correctly describe this argument. Leslie didn't say anything false, she failed to say something true .... and this author failed to distinguish between those concepts.

In Q23, meanwhile, Mark actually said something false. He said to his mom, "I was in an accident. That's why I missed your party."

Yes, he was simultaneously withholding the truth: "I forgot about the party."

But there was no flaw in how Helen thought about that. Mark did say something false.

B) Helen does not "assume" Mark had forgotten about the party. She states it as a premise. (An assumption is an unstated idea). However, even if we were to skeptically ask, "Helen, can you PROVE he forgot about the party?" It wouldn't matter to the logic of the argument (and, of course, the logic is what we're supposed to evaluate).

Here's Helen's logic:

Mark said something false (he told his mom he had been in an accident)
+
Saying something false is always morally wrong.
--------------------
thus, it was wrong for Mark to tell his mom he was in an accident.

Notice that the perceived/actual cause of Mark missing the party (whether he forgot about it or just blew it off to go see "Smurfs 3D") has no part in the logic of Helen's argument. It doesn't matter to her logic why he missed the party, as long as it wasn't due to a traffic accident.

C) The phrasing of this answer is that Helen "judges X according to Y". Flaw answer choices that try to describe the judgment and the basis just want you to match the judgment to the conclusion and the basis to the premise(s).

Did Helen's conclusion judge behavior that is outside an individual's control?

No. Her conclusion judged Mark's behavior in lying to his mom. That behavior, common sense would tell us, is in Mark's control.

This would be reason enough to eliminate (C), but we'll examine the Premise half as well.

Did Helen's premise include a moral standard that can properly be applied only to behavior within someone's control?

No. Helen's premise included a moral standard that applies to saying any false statement ... as the previous poster noted, her moral standard does NOT include qualifying language such as "Saying something that is false is morally wrong if the speaker knows that the statement is false".

So neither the conclusion part of (C) nor the premise part of (C) match was said in Helen's argument.

D) I've never seen an "illegitimate appeal to pity" be correct. For it to be the real problem, you'd need some argument like:

Sally was sent to detention for hitting Mark. Any student caught hitting another student must serve detention. But Sally is a straight-A student who never gets in trouble. The idea of serving detention makes her bawl uncontrollably and feel terrible about herself. Therefore, Sally shouldn't have to serve detention.

We also know that (D) is wrong because it says that the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises. However, the opposite is true. As stated above and in a previous post, Helen's two premises logically guarantee her conclusion.

Hope this helps.

[gplaya123]

I am really really curious about something.

Am I the only one to think that
perhaps this argument may not be tight?

I concede that Patrick is definitely right...

but Helen's evidence talks about morally wrong vs
the conclusion talks about just being plain wrong.

I reckon that something can be morally wrong but not wrong to do so...

Like... lying...

Perhaps it is morally wrong to lie but it's not wrong to say a "white" lie?


---

If I am wrong... please someone tell me... when it's generally ok to consider "morally wrong" and "wrong" mean something equally...

Thanks!

[ohthatpatrick]

Seems to me that "morally wrong" is a subset of "wrong".

Something might be wrong without being morally wrong (maybe it's just strategically wrong or factually wrong), but all these subsets of "wrong" are still "wrong".

Otherwise, you seem to think that "wrong" has a distinct meaning unto itself. What would that meaning be? It seems like it will be hard for you to give a definition without implicating a subset type of wrong-ness ... and if you just say there are many types of wrong-ness, you're still saying they all contain an element of wrong-ness.

(Good lord, I feel like I'm back in Philosophy classes)

The tricky semantic argument you could pose would be a problem like this:
What if action X is morally wrong but strategically right? Is it wrong to do action X?

If you didn't do action X, it would be morally right but strategically wrong. Is it wrong NOT to do action X?

Is doing action X right or wrong? (seems like you'd have to choose whether "wrong" is determined more by morals or strategic principles).

Either way, this is crazy talk! Let's move on with our lives.

[WaltGrace1983]

I thought this question was super weird too but I was able to (apprehensively) pick (E) due to eliminating the others. I was totally scared to question the validity of the premise though . Anyway, while I thought Patrick's analysis was very helpful, I still have a little concern over (A) and (B). I would like to go over my thought process and hopefully someone will chime in and tell me I am wrong or right.

(A) So this is wrong because Helen never withholds information? I mean she probably never says anything to the mother but the mother here is of little importance. The point is that...

Saying something is false is morally wrong + Mark had falsely said he was in a traffic accident → Mark committed a wrong action

Would it be different if the argument went something like this...

Saying something is false is morally wrong + Helen's mother asked where Mark was and, though knowing he was lying, Helen said that she didn't know → Helen committed a wrong action

So is THAT what (A) is trying to get at? (A) is wrong because this never happens - Mark just blatantly says something false. No one questions him where he was and he just doesn't answer.

(B) So we have a "cause" and then we have an "effect." The cause would presumably be the lying and the effect is the wrongness. Thus Lying → Wrong. So is (B) just saying that the argument fails to acknowledge that there is other ways in which someone can be wrong than just lying? So in order words, (B) is saying that he argument says Wrong → Lying - if someone is wrong it MUST BE the case that they were lying. However, the argument does not seem to be saying W→L and, even if it were, this is not the flaw of the argument. Confusing a sufficient for a necessary and vice versa is NOT what the gap is here!

Another question...

(B) Helen does not "assume" Mark had forgotten about the party. She states it as a premise. (An assumption is an unstated idea). However, even if we were to skeptically ask, "Helen, can you PROVE he forgot about the party?" It wouldn't matter to the logic of the argument (and, of course, the logic is what we're supposed to evaluate).

I don't understand how this analysis from Patrick fits into (B). Can someone explain this more in-depth? Maybe I am just missing something.

[Mab6q]

I thought this question was super weird too but I was able to (apprehensively) pick (E) due to eliminating the others. I was totally scared to question the validity of the premise though . Anyway, while I thought Patrick's analysis was very helpful, I still have a little concern over (A) and (B). I would like to go over my thought process and hopefully someone will chime in and tell me I am wrong or right.

(A) So this is wrong because Helen never withholds information? I mean she probably never says anything to the mother but the mother here is of little importance. The point is that...

Saying something is false is morally wrong + Mark had falsely said he was in a traffic accident → Mark committed a wrong action

Would it be different if the argument went something like this...

Saying something is false is morally wrong + Helen's mother asked where Mark was and, though knowing he was lying, Helen said that she didn't know → Helen committed a wrong action

So is THAT what (A) is trying to get at? (A) is wrong because this never happens - Mark just blatantly says something false. No one questions him where he was and he just doesn't answer.

(B) So we have a "cause" and then we have an "effect." The cause would presumably be the lying and the effect is the wrongness. Thus Lying → Wrong. So is (B) just saying that the argument fails to acknowledge that there is other ways in which someone can be wrong than just lying? So in order words, (B) is saying that he argument says Wrong → Lying - if someone is wrong it MUST BE the case that they were lying. However, the argument does not seem to be saying W→L and, even if it were, this is not the flaw of the argument. Confusing a sufficient for a necessary and vice versa is NOT what the gap is here!

Another question...

(B) Helen does not "assume" Mark had forgotten about the party. She states it as a premise. (An assumption is an unstated idea). However, even if we were to skeptically ask, "Helen, can you PROVE he forgot about the party?" It wouldn't matter to the logic of the argument (and, of course, the logic is what we're supposed to evaluate).

I don't understand how this analysis from Patrick fits into (B). Can someone explain this more in-depth? Maybe I am just missing something.

I think B is essentially saying that the author assumes that one cause of an effect is the only cause. Is that the issue here? No. This issue comes when we see questions with correlation =causation issues, which is not the case here.

[cyt5015]

Hi Walgrace1983, I think the "cause" and "effect" a geek mentioned earlier refer to "Mark forget all about the party" and "missing the birthday party", respectively. If the argument goes like this:
"Mark told his mother that he missed the birthday party because he had been in a car accident. However, there had been no such accident. Therefore, Mark must simply forget all about the party."
then answer B would be a proper answer; however the original argument is not about the reason why Mark missed the party but whether being wrong to not tell the truth. Therefore, answer B is wrong.

[michellemyxu]

Isn't C saying that Helen shouldn't apply her own moral principle (what she does is within her control) to other people, say Mark (What Mark does is beyond Helen's control)?

[ohthatpatrick]

It's an interesting concept of morality you have there.

You're saying, "A moral standard" is something than can only apply to our OWN behavior? We can't apply a moral standard to someone else's behavior, since we can't control their behavior?

I don't entirely disagree with that highly relativistic sense of morality, but that's not a common sense interpretation of morality.

All the world's major religions and systems of government attempt to describe moral standards that apply to all (or most) rational beings.

The moral standard of "you should not kill something without just cause" is something I can apply to myself or to others, even though I can't control others' behavior.

The moral standard of "saying something false is always morally wrong" is something that can be applied to oneself or to others.