Q25 - The end of an action

[willaminic]

Hi,

For this question, i have to admit the fact that i am completely confused by the logic and abstrck wording ...can anyone explain to me how to work these kind question in test Thanks in advance

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

The good thing on this one is that we don't really need to understand what it's saying so long as we're paying attention to what the question is asking us to do. This one was meant to confuse you. The language is completely riddled with nearly unintelligible statements.

Here's the key... See the word "thus" in the first sentence. What comes before it is a premise and what comes after it is a conclusion. The next sentence begins with the word "so," implying that what comes after that word is supported by what comes before it. There is clause that concedes a point and is not really part of the argument articulated by the author. But after the words "it is clear that" is the main conclusion. So we have premise: subsidiary conclusion: opposing point: main conclusion, in that order.

We need an answer that resembles "nothing will justify a means except an end’s value." - best expressed in answer choice (C).

(A) is too weak. The operative word in the conclusion is "nothing" whereas in this answer choice the word is "some."
(B) has the conditional relationship backwards. We know that to justify a means one must appeal to the end's value, but that doesn't mean that one will always be able to justify a means.
(C) correctly rephrases the main conclusion of the argument.
(D) is way off track. The conclusion has nothing to do with "by-products."
(E) is also off track. The conclusion is about justifying a means, whereas this answer choice is about justifying the "intended outcome."

I know this one is tough, but if you notice them using really confusing terms, it would help to clarify your objective. In this one you can forgo a deep analysis of the meaning of the words and focus in on key words indicating argument organization.

Let me know if this clears it up!

[goriano]

The good thing on this one is that we don't really need to understand what it's saying so long as we're paying attention to what the question is asking us to do. This one was meant to confuse you. The language is completely riddled with nearly unintelligible statements.

Here's the key... See the word "thus" in the first sentence. What comes before it is a premise and what comes after it is a conclusion. The next sentence begins with the word "so," implying that what comes after that word is supported by what comes before it. There is clause that concedes a point and is not really part of the argument articulated by the author. But after the words "it is clear that" is the main conclusion. So we have premise: subsidiary conclusion: opposing point: main conclusion, in that order.

We need an answer that resembles "nothing will justify a means except an end’s value." - best expressed in answer choice (C).

(A) is too weak. The operative word in the conclusion is "nothing" whereas in this answer choice the word is "some."
(B) has the conditional relationship backwards. We know that to justify a means one must appeal to the end's value, but that doesn't mean that one will always be able to justify a means.
(C) correctly rephrases the main conclusion of the argument.
(D) is way off track. The conclusion has nothing to do with "by-products."
(E) is also off track. The conclusion is about justifying a means, whereas this answer choice is about justifying the "intended outcome."

I know this one is tough, but if you notice them using really confusing terms, it would help to clarify your objective. In this one you can forgo a deep analysis of the meaning of the words and focus in on key words indicating argument organization.

Let me know if this clears it up!

The conclusion is "Nothing will justify a means except an end's value"

(C): One can justify an action only by appeal to the value of its intended outcome.

I understand the "only by appeal to the value of its intended outcome" references "except an end's value." But the conclusion talks about justifying a MEANS whereas (C) talks about justifying an ACTION. Where in the stimulus did they equate the two?

[anjelica.grace]

I understand the "only by appeal to the value of its intended outcome" references "except an end's value." But the conclusion talks about justifying a MEANS whereas (C) talks about justifying an ACTION. Where in the stimulus did they equate the two?

I think when discussing throughout what the end's value can justify, the author of the stimulus begins substituting "means" for "action" in the second sentence. So while it is not explicitly equated as the terms "end" and "intended outcome" are, thinking about it conceptually will allow you to see that that the author uses the two terms "means" and "action" interchangably.

[AnnaT620]

I am still not clear on the above explanation, unfortunately.

I can see that the conclusion here is that "nothing will justify a means except an end’s value." - and therefore the correct answer will need to resemble this. I struggle to see why the correct answer is C though / why E is incorrect?

I don't see why the intended outcome the same as the thing that actually happened?

[Misti Duvall]

I am still not clear on the above explanation, unfortunately.

I can see that the conclusion here is that "nothing will justify a means except an end’s value." - and therefore the correct answer will need to resemble this. I struggle to see why the correct answer is C though / why E is incorrect?

I don't see why the intended outcome the same as the thing that actually happened?

Yeah, (C) and (E) are tricky. I agree that the intended outcome is not necessarily the same thing as the actual outcome, and that's the biggest difference between (C) and (E). The conclusion talks about justifying a "means," i.e., an action. Answer choice C talks about justifying an action, while E talks about justifying the intended outcome of an action. (C) matches the conclusion, while (E) shifts the concept to something out of scope.

Hope this helps.