Q24 - Ethicist: A society is just

[sunhwa2881]

I'm having trouble with this question. Please help. Thanks~

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Oh I forgot about this question, but I love it! I taught this one for years in class, and it really stays true to the concepts of conditional relationships.

While these questions make up only 20% of all LR questions, they make up nearly 40-50% of the LR questions that people ask about.

"when, and only when" introduces a biconditional, so we'll use a double headed arrow to represent the conditional relationship.

J <--> RBL + (IT --> EA + JOE)

the contrapositive

~J <--> ~RBL or ~(IT --> EA + JOE)

(Notation Key: J = just, RBL = right to basic liberties, IT= inequalities tolerated, EA = everyone's advantage, JOE = jobs open to everyone)

Just, when and only when, each person has a right to basic liberties, and if inequalities are tolerated then they must be to everyone's advantage and attached to jobs open to everyone.

Note that the contrapositive reads if there is not an equal right to basic liberties or the conditional relationship regarding inequalities tolerated is not true, then the society is not just. This is expressed in answer choice (D).

(A) is close but goes wrong when it says the jobs are open to most people. We need them to be open to everyone, in order to establish that the society is just.
(B) doesn't tell us whether those inequalities that are tolerated are or are not those inequalities are to everyone's advantage or whether they are attached to jobs open to everyone.
(C) fails to mention whether each person has a right to basic liberties.
(E) doesn't tell us whether those inequalities that are tolerated are to everyone's advantage.

Does that clear it up?

#OfficialExplanation

[carly.applebaum]

can someone please explain why B is incorrect? i still dont see it. it seems, to me, that it is saying the same thing as D is.

in B, isn't "at the expense of creating inequalities in the distribution of income and wealth" using the contrapositive of "tolerated -> everyone's advantage", thus it is restating the stimulus?

[timmydoeslsat]

For (B) to trigger ~Just, we must be able to prove at least one of the two requirements will not be met.

The first part about basic rights is good. This will requirement will be met. So we cannot use this to trigger ~Just.

The second part is simply not enough information. We are told that there will be inequities, however we do not know whether they are attached to jobs open to everyone and are to everyone's advantage.

So it could be possible to have inequalities yet it still be tolerated. This is why B does not trigger ~Just, whereas (D) does. (D) gives us a situation of denying that first requirement.

[donghai819]

Hi teachers,

Both are more difficult conditional statements:

1. Donnie will get A if and only if he studies hard and he is smart.
Diagram: A <--> study hard + smart
Contrapositive: ~A <--> ~study hard OR ~smart

2. Donnie will get A unless he studies hard or he is smart
Diagram: ~ study hard + ~smart --> A
Contrapositive: ~A --> study hard OR smart

My question is: has LSAT ever tested us a statement that combined "bio-conditional" + "unless". If so, what does that statement look like?

Thanks in advance!

[hstler1]

Oh I forgot about this question, but I love it! I taught this one for years in class, and it really stays true to the concepts of conditional relationships.

While these questions make up only 20% of all LR questions, they make up nearly 40-50% of the LR questions that people ask about.

"when, and only when" introduces a biconditional, so we'll use a double headed arrow to represent the conditional relationship.

J <--> RBL + (IT --> EA + JOE)

the contrapositive

~J <--> ~RBL or ~(IT --> EA + JOE)

(Notation Key: J = just, RBL = right to basic liberties, IT= inequalities tolerated, EA = everyone's advantage, JOE = jobs open to everyone)

Just, when and only when, each person has a right to basic liberties, and if inequalities are tolerated then they must be to everyone's advantage and attached to jobs open to everyone.

Note that the contrapositive reads if there is not an equal right to basic liberties or the conditional relationship regarding inequalities tolerated is not true, then the society is not just. This is expressed in answer choice (D).

(A) is close but goes wrong when it says the jobs are open to most people. We need them to be open to everyone, in order to establish that the society is just.
(B) doesn't tell us whether those inequalities that are tolerated are or are not those inequalities are to everyone's advantage or whether they are attached to jobs open to everyone.
(C) fails to mention whether each person has a right to basic liberties.
(E) doesn't tell us whether those inequalities that are tolerated are to everyone's advantage.

Does that clear it up?

It doesn't quite clear up the problems. It appears as though you've missed the "unless" statement's appropriate translation. I've very confused of how you could get to the answer missing this. Please explain why you didn't negate the sufficient and derived your necessary conditions.

[touch_horizon]

i believe that the "unless" means that if the condition following fullfilled("TO EVERYONE`S ADVANTAGE..... ), the claim that " A SOCIETY IS JUST WHEN...... ARE NOT TOLERATED" would not be true.

[LolaC289]

I find the conditional statement in this argument very strange. I wonder if we can infer any JUST society from it.

The argument:

Everyone has an equal rights to basic liberties
+
[Inequalities are tolerated --> Inequalities are advantageous to everyone + Inequalities are attached to jobs open to everyone]

<------> Society Just

It's easy to infer what societies are unjust by failing either one of the necessary conditions; But can we truly infer a just society from it?

1. IF we have a society where everyone has an equal right to basic liberties, and where Inequalities are advantageous to everyone + Inequalities are attached to jobs open to everyone. Is it a just society? Since we only satisfied the necessary conditions for the conditional statement, have we satisfied the conditional statement itself? (Does merely NO VIOLATION of the conditional statement constitute A SATISFACTION of that conditional statement as a premise?)

2. IF we have a society where everyone has an equal rights to basic liberties, and where Inequalities are tolerated, while Inequalities are advantageous to everyone + Inequalities are attached to jobs open to everyone. Is it a just society? Since the conditional statement only seemed to be satisfied superficially by every element of it co-existing, and has nothing to do with the conditional nature of the statement.

(in other words, if the "most people" in answer choice (A) is changed to "all people", is it a correct answer then?)

Getting really confused in here. Any help would be great! I hope my question is presented clear.