Q23 - Ethicist: It would be

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

This is a Determine the Function question. We need to dissect the structure of the argument in order to answer this one correctly. We can break the argument into three parts. The first part is the conclusion. The second part is an opposing point that, although admitted to be true, does not refute the conclusion. The third part is the direct evidence for the conclusion. The question asks us about the second part of the argument, so we are looking for an answer choice that says it serves as an opposing point that does not disprove the conclusion _ best stated in answer choice (B).

(A) is not true. The claim is not supported by any other claim in the argument.
(B) is true. The claim is an observation that is conceded but is argued does not disprove the conclusion.
(C) is really tempting but not true. The argument never contends that the point is a "primary" obstacle. The claim is an obstacle as it is an opposing point. But that does not mean that it’s the primary obstacle.
(D) is not a true statement. The author does not believe the statement is false.
(E) is not a true statement. The claim is an opposing, rather than supporting, point.

[jamiejames]

I got down to B and C on this one. Could you explain, in simplified terms, what answer choice B is saying?

[eunjung.shin]

this is what I think.

Con: It would be a mistake to say that just b/c someone is not inclined to do otherwise, she/he doesnt deserve to be praised for doing what is right

P1: although We do consider people especially virtuous if they successfully resist a desire to do what is wrong

P2: they are certainly no less virtuous if they have succeded in extinguishing all such desires.


Q asks the function of P1. B is saying if you only have P1 not P2, it is not sufficient to validate the conclusion. It is a part of the premise but not enough to make the argument solid.

Does that help?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Q asks the function of P1. B is saying if you only have P1 not P2, it is not sufficient to validate the conclusion. It is a part of the premise but not enough to make the argument solid.

Really close eunjung.shin!!! It's not that P1 isn't enough to justify the conclusion, but rather that it's not enough to prove that people deserve praise for doing the right thing (the opposite of what the author is trying to prove). Why? Because according the author they also need to be tempted to do the wrong thing. Then by overcoming that temptation, they have demonstrated praiseworthiness.

Essentially, the question stem asks us for the role of the claim following the word "although." The word "although" is really important, because it indicates a concession - an opposing point to the argument's conclusion.

[shirando21]

what does the claim refer to?

Is it "Just because someone is not inclined to do otherwise, she or he does not deserve to be praised for doing what is right"?

[roflcoptersoisoi]

Organizational structure of passage:
Conclusion - Opposing point - Premise.

The phrase in question is the opposing point.


(A) A claim that is justified is a conclusion, this isn't a conclusion, it is an opposing point.
(B) This is a convoluted way of saying that the phrase in question functions as an opposing point in the argument. The claim that the author thinks is false is: if someone was never inclined to do what is not right then when they do what is right, they should not be lauded for doing so. By virtue of being an opposing point, it will support an alternative conclusion and therefore venture to disprove the conclusion in question. In conceding the phrase in question, the author is saying even though it is true, it is not enough to disprove the conclusion/ support the alternative conclusion.
(C) Given that the claim is an opposing point, it may be an obstacle, but the operative word here is "PRIMARY", the author never suggests that the claim is the PRIMARY obstacle to some people's having an adequate conception of virtue.
(D) He never says that the claim in question is false, it is an opposing point that he concedes is true.
(E) It doesn't serve as evidence for the conclusion, because it's not a supporting premise, it's is an opposing point.

[JeremyK460]

Let me know what you guys think! Love these message boards!!

Breakdown:
We don’t praise people who naturally want to do right, but although we praise people who want to do wrong but successfully resist, we would praise them no less if they were to have aptly gotten rid of such immoral desires.

Structure:
Claimed Viewpoint: People who aren’t inclined to do wrong shouldn’t be praised for doing right.
Counter Viewpoint: People who aren’t inclined to do wrong can be praised for doing right.
Concession: We praise people who resist a desire to do wrong.
Support: We wouldn’t praise them any less if they were to totally extinguish such desires.

Super Paraphrased Diagram:
P: well-inclined does good → not praised
P: ill-inclined does good → praised
P: ill-inclined becomes well-inclined (does good) → praised
C: well-inclined does good → praised

Method Formula:
You are wrong in thinking that not-A is not-B. Because although it’s true that A is B, Z is B and Z is not-A.

Premises:
People who are not-good and resist doing not-good stuff are considered to be very virtuous.
Such people would be no less virtuous if they were to attain a sense of natural-goodness.

Conclusion:
A naturally-good person should be praised for doing something right.

Analysis:
The statement in question is a concession: accepting the opposing claim, the author seeks to deemphasize its weight in supporting the claim’s conclusion.

Answer Choices:
(A) This isn’t the conclusion. It’s a concession. It’s an accepted opposing point, subsequently shown to be less effective than claimed to be.

(B) This is a function of concession use. Accept my opponent’s support for their conclusion, but show how it doesn’t lead to their intended conclusion. Feels right!

(C) This is kind of a claim that accepts a general truth in which the argument could be feeling like is a primary obstacle to some people having a sufficient conception of virtue. It’s less strenuous to find common ground between the concept of ‘people praising those ill-inclined who resist’ and that being ‘obstacle-like for people’s misunderstanding in who they consider virtuous’. It’s super strenuous to find how the concept of evaluation in terms of significance and acceptability is relative to the concepts of how one attains an understanding of virtue and the acceptability level of that understanding.

(D) The argument doesn’t try to disprove or refute the statement in question. It is a commonly held opinion but it isn’t shown to be false. Why would the author concede to something and then be like just kidding.

(E) A concession may strengthen an argument in some way, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the concession is evidence for the truth of its conclusion. When an argument uses a concession, it’s used to acknowledge an opposing viewpoint. It’s also used to anticipate objections from its opposition.