Q4 - Walter: For the economically privileged

[Shiggins]

I am having trouble ruling out choice E

Walter: Claims that an injustice perpetrated on a disadvantage member of society is not only unjust but also shortsighted

Evidence: This injustice can be repeated in the future to the same extent.

Larissa: She says allowing such injustices is not just.

Evidence: Her evidence is different, she saus it is not bc of the same equal extent but bc it is a source of unrest.

Larissa does not disagree, she just brings in something else to show it is bad policy and that is the source of unrest.

I see how D fits this criteria, but how does E distinguish itself as wrong.

I thought Larissa was saying that Walter has overlooked unrest as a problem, but is it wrong because she discredits the policy putting everyone at equal risk and is not saying you need to add unrest into your reasoning.

If anyone could help or correct, much appreciated

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

This is a good question and the answer is fairly subtle. Answer choice (E) can be eliminated on the definition of one word, "implications." An implication would be a resulting consequence of Walter's position, not an alternative justification of Walter's position. If answer choice (E) were the correct answer we would expect Larissa to point out a consequence, an output so to speak, rather than an input.

Your analysis of how answer choice (D) reflects Larissa's response is great, so I'll leave it your own words. But for others, I'll go ahead rule out the other incorrect answer choices.

(A) is incorrect for Larissa does not doubt Walter's conclusion.
(B) is incorrect for Larissa does not draw implausible consequences, nor does anything Larissa discusses derive from an assumption of Walter.
(C) is incorrect for Larissa does not question Walter's authority to speak but rather the justification for his position.
(E) is incorrect for Larissa does not discuss implications of Walter's position but rather his justifications.

Hope that helps!

[keonheecho]

I'm having trouble with eliminating (A), and choosing (D) instead. I don't see how Larissa is agreeing wit Walter's conclusion. Isn't Walter's conclusion that "for the economically privileged in a society to tolerate an injustice perpetrated against one of society's disadvantaged is not just morally wrong but also shortsighted"? Then the support for this conclusion is that a system that causes injustice to a disadvantaged person can cause the same injustice on a well-to-do person tomorrow. Larissa seems to disagree with the support, but isn't she also questioning Walter's conclusion in the process? Walter is talking about how it is not just morally wrong, but ALSO shortsighted. So by attacking the claim that it is shortsighted, isn't she also attacking the conclusion?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Larissa seems to disagree with the support, but isn't she also questioning Walter's conclusion in the process? Walter is talking about how it is not just morally wrong, but ALSO shortsighted. So by attacking the claim that it is shortsighted, isn't she also attacking the conclusion?

I think you missed something important about what Larissa said. Her point is that that tolerating injustices against the disadvantaged is both wrong and short-sighted. Larissa does NOT attack the claim that it is short-sighted. Larissa's claim is that it is short-sighted because it is a potential source of social unrest.

So Larissa would agree that tolerating injustices against the disadvantaged is both wrong and short-sighted.

Hope that helps!