Q23 - Essayist: The existance of a

[alovitt]

I recognized that the essayist is confusing necessary and sufficient conditions and A seemed to capture this best, but I was pretty hesitant with the last bit that says "to be realized." Where does the author make any claim that the bad need to be realized in order to be punished. Is it not possible that the bad will be punished without it being realized? I got this right and would have no qualms if the answer just stopped after the word "sufficient." But could one of you LSAT geniuses chime in on that phrase "to be realized"? Thanks!

[timmydoeslsat]

Something to be realized = Something that will happen, will come about.

An element of the moral order (they chose the bad) will happen if the sufficient is met.

Another way to word answer choice A would be, "that thing is sufficient for an element to occur."

[tobyna]

Hello!

Although I do understand why A is correct, I'm having trouble understanding why E is incorrect.

By defining moral order as one in which "bad is always eventually punished," is the conclusion that "bad will be punished" not presupposed in the definition, as E states?

I am also having a bit of trouble identifying the main conclusion; I can't decide which it is between the first and last sentences...

Help would be very much appreciated! Thank you in advance.

[tommywallach]

Hey Tobyna,

Love the fact that you're going deeper on this, and making sure you see the conclusion and the premises. The conclusion comes in the last sentence, not the first one. This is very difficult to work out. What you need to do is focus on what the facts themselves (premises) are proving. Let's start there:

Premises: M.O. sometimes karma/reincarnation, sometimes supreme being punishing after death (both of which depend upon souls being immortal).

Conclusion: If souls immortal, bad will be punished.

Notice how the first sentence actually fits into the premises. All premises will be presented as fact, while conclusions are opinions. Because they tell you that first sentence as a fact, we accept it as such. Now look at the last sentence:

"...if human souls are immortal, then it follows that..."

See how they aren't showing it as a fact, but as an opinion ("it follows that...")? So the error is that just because you have to have immortal souls to get moral order, that doesn't mean that having immortal souls immediately gets you moral order (you also need the whole religion thing behind karma/God punishment).

A) Nails it.

B) Nothing here is actually a belief. The beliefs DO FACTUALLY cause the existence of a moral order, even if the beliefs themselves happen to be faith-based.

C) The argument never says that it believes human souls are immortal. It merely says that you need to have the theory of immortal souls in order to create a moral order.

D) Though you could argue that the passage does treat the karma and the supreme being justice ideas as two separate conceptions of a moral order, this isn't actually a flaw. They are, for the purposes of the argument, the same.

E) This does not actually happen. The conclusion is that "If human souls are immortal, then it follows that the bad will be punished." This is NOT presupposed in the definition of a moral order ( "bad is always punished and good rewarded"). That definition doesn't even mention the immortality of human souls.

Let me know if you have any further questions!

-t

[samuelfbaron]

"moral order depend on human souls being immortal"

Moral Order --> Human Souls Immortal

Alternatively: "without the immortality of human souls you cannot have a moral order"

~Human souls immortal --> ~Moral Order

ARGUMENT CONCLUDES:

Human Souls Immortal --> Moral Order exists (bad souls will be punished)

The argument confuses sufficient and necessary conditions.

To breakdown (A):

Something necessary to a moral (Human souls immortal), the argument concludes that human souls immortal is sufficient for moral order to be realized.

Is this the correct interpretation?

[peru_lpz]

here is what I notice in this question. Notice answer A states that from the claim that something is necessary to M.O, the argument concludes that that thing is sufficient for an ELEMENT of M.O. to be accomplished.

This is not a simple necessary/sufficient confusion, in my opinion. Moral order in the universe (M.O.) ENTAILS an order wherein the bad is always punished and the good always rewarded, and this depends on human soul being immortal(S.I). That is, If M.O then S.I. Now the argument concludes that if the Human soul is immortal (S.I.), then bad will be punished. This latter part is an ELEMENT of the sufficient condition M.O. That is, that the bad will always be punished is an ELMENT of the sufficient. This is a fine distinction.

The author did not confuse S.I. as a necessary with M.O, as a sufficient, in general. It confused the necessary condition to meet an ELEMENT of a sufficient condition. For example, IF M.O ( M.O has as its elements as always rewarding the good and punishing the bad) then, S.I. From this the author concluded, IF S.I. then one will always punish the bad. The flaw is subtle. It takes a necessary to conclude an ELEMENT of the suffice condition ( the element being always punishing the bad). Hope this help. Without seeing the subtle distinction mention above, I'm sure some student will struggle.

Any ideas.

[peru_lpz]

here is what I notice in this question. Notice answer A states that from the claim that something is necessary to M.O, the argument concludes that that thing is sufficient for an ELEMENT of M.O. to be accomplished.

This is not a simple necessary/sufficient confusion, in my opinion. Moral order in the universe (M.O.) ENTAILS an order wherein the bad is always punished and the good always rewarded, and this depends on human soul being immortal(S.I). That is, If M.O then S.I. Now the argument concludes that if the Human soul is immortal (S.I.), then bad will be punished. This latter part is an ELEMENT of the sufficient condition M.O. That is, that the bad will always be punished is an ELMENT of the sufficient. This is a fine distinction.

The author did not confuse S.I. as a necessary with M.O, as a sufficient, in general. It confused the necessary condition to meet an ELEMENT of a sufficient condition. For example, IF M.O ( M.O has as its elements as always rewarding the good and punishing the bad) then, S.I. From this the author concluded, IF S.I. then one will always punish the bad. The flaw is subtle. It takes a necessary to conclude an ELEMENT of the suffice condition ( the element being always punishing the bad). Hope this help. Without seeing the subtle distinction mention above, I'm sure some student will struggle.

Any ideas.

[WaltGrace1983]

here is what I notice in this question. Notice answer A states that from the claim that something is necessary to M.O, the argument concludes that that thing is sufficient for an ELEMENT of M.O. to be accomplished.

This is not a simple necessary/sufficient confusion, in my opinion. Moral order in the universe (M.O.) ENTAILS an order wherein the bad is always punished and the good always rewarded, and this depends on human soul being immortal(S.I). That is, If M.O then S.I. Now the argument concludes that if the Human soul is immortal (S.I.), then bad will be punished. This latter part is an ELEMENT of the sufficient condition M.O. That is, that the bad will always be punished is an ELMENT of the sufficient. This is a fine distinction.

The author did not confuse S.I. as a necessary with M.O, as a sufficient, in general. It confused the necessary condition to meet an ELEMENT of a sufficient condition. For example, IF M.O ( M.O has as its elements as always rewarding the good and punishing the bad) then, S.I. From this the author concluded, IF S.I. then one will always punish the bad. The flaw is subtle. It takes a necessary to conclude an ELEMENT of the suffice condition ( the element being always punishing the bad). Hope this help. Without seeing the subtle distinction mention above, I'm sure some student will struggle.

Any ideas.

I think I see what you are getting at and I'll see if I can answer in my own words.

The argument goes like this

The existence of moral order depends upon human souls being immortal.
→
If human souls are immortal, then it follows that the bad will be punished

Now let's see if we can write this out in a more concise way...

(Moral Order → Immortality)
→
(Immortality → Bad will be punished)

Now the main distinction here, as in I think what you are getting at, is that the "bad being punished" is not necessarily the same as a moral order. In other words, it is not the case that "Bad will be punished → Moral Order). However, it is the case that (Moral Order → Bad will be punished). I.e. it is the case that a moral order will lead the bad to be punished (and the good to be rewarded). Yet this is absolutely fine!

Your right, (A) is not a simply sufficient/necessary confusion because it is not merely saying the following:

(Moral Order → Immortality)
→
(Immortality → Moral Order)


However, we do absolutely know that the argument is taking something necessary for a moral order to be something sufficient for something else. We know that. It wouldn't matter if the argument swapped out (Immortality → Bad will be punished) for (Immortality → There will be hot dogs). Either way, the argument is taking something necessary for immortality to be sufficient for something else.

So (A) is saying this exactly! "For an element of the moral order to be realized" is just "bad will be punished." Yet we do not know that immortality definitely leads to bad will be punished! This is the flaw!

Hope that clears something up.

P.S. there absolutely will be hot dogs.

[seychelles1718]

Could anyone please explain why C is wrong?

I interpreted "implies" in C as "guarantees." So I think C is wrong because the essayist never makes "the claim that the immortality of human souls implies (guarantees) that there is a moral order in the universe." He is actually saying the immortality is NECESSARY for the existence of a moral order in the first sentences.

Also, the author never "concludes that there being a moral order in the universe implies that human souls are immortal," but instead takes the necessary condition (immortality) as sufficient condition to make his conclusion.

Is my reasoning for C correct? I'd appreciate any help!

[maryadkins]

Yes! Excellent!