Q6 - Evan: I am a vegetarian because I believe it is immoral

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Match the Reasoning (which answer conforms to principle illustrated above)

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: we should refrain from eating seafood, under the concern that sea animals might feel pleasure and pain.
Evidence: Even though it's not known whether sea animals feel pleasure and pain, if it's wrong to inflict suffering to obtain food, then we should avoid the possibility.

Answer Anticipation:
Unlike other Match the Reasoning (in which we might have to diagram how conditionals were combined to derive the conclusion), matching an illustrated principle usually feels more like "What's the moral to the story?" Our author has a certain rule he follows (don't inflict pain to obtain food). When he encounters a situation (sea creatures) for which he's unsure if the rule applies, he plays it safe and acts as though the rule DOES apply, for the sake of minimizing harm to others. So we're looking for something like "Here's my normal rule. Not sure if it applies to X, but I'll act as though it DOES apply to X."

Correct Answer:
A

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) YES. On a first pass, I would have just kept it and thought, "Not too bad. It does have that feel of 'when in doubt, play it safe and avoiding otherwise harming someone.'"

(B) This is about what you can infer from a certain amount of uncertainty. We need something that tells us "how we should behave/act" on the basis of some uncertainty.

(C) I really have no idea what this has to do with the original argument/situation. It's hard to match up any of it.

(D) Nothing here resembles a desire to avoid harm or a situation where we're uncertain whether harm would result.

(E) This is again about what we can infer, not about how to act / behave. There is also no match for the uncertain situation or the desire to avoid harm.

Takeaway/Pattern: There are a lot of different, valid ways we might have summarized the original argument/principle abstractly. Ultimately, the correct answer shows us that what LSAT was fishing for was, "If you're not sure whether you're be inflicting pain, take the course of action that minimizes that risk." Oh, man ... did I just say "what LSAT was FISHING for?" (no pun intended)

#officialexplanation

[rinagoldfield]

Hello! As part of my curriculum training to be a Manhattan LSAT instructor I've diagrammed the solution for this problem. See below!

[zhm222006]

Thank you very much. It helps!