Q6 - Some argue that laws are

[kmewmewblue]

I don't think I understand the core of this statement.
Also, what does it exactly mean "regardless of any further moral aims of the law"?

Thank you in advance.

[noah]

This question is asking us to draw an inference (a "soft" one, since it's a "most strongly supported" inference question). So, the stimulus doesn't necessarily have an argument within it.

In this case, the stimulus boils down to this:

Some people say that laws are partly to set up morals.

The primary function of laws are to order society.

The highest courts have sometimes treated moral beliefs as a reason to make an exception to a law.

The correct answer, (A), is the most provable. The high courts, in making exceptions to laws because of religious beliefs has taken into account the beliefs of those the law governs.

(B) is too extreme - devoid of moral aims?!

(C) is an extrapolation - we don't know what the highest courts tend to do.

(D) is a normative statement - we're not able to infer any opinions from the stimulus about what should or should not be.

(E) has a degree issue - the best way? hunh?

I hope that clears it up.

[WaltGrace1983]

How about that phrase "regardless of any FURTHER moral aims"? Wouldn't this imply that there is at least a little bit of a moral aim for law? I know that (B) is wrong...I was just looking for a little bit of support.

[noah]

How about that phrase "regardless of any FURTHER moral aims"? Wouldn't this imply that there is at least a little bit of a moral aim for law? I know that (B) is wrong...I was just looking for a little bit of support.

It sounds like you've just given a reason for (B) to be incorrect! If there's a bit of moral aim, why would we say it's "devoid" of those aims?

[aznriceboi17]

I was thrown off because I thought the position in the first sentence, 'Some argue that laws are instituted at least in part to help establish a particular moral fabric in society', was being argued against (the 'But' indicator to start the following sentence gave me that impression). In that case, the logical opposite of 'at least in part' is not at all, or devoid.

How exactly is this argument structured? My interpretation was that the first sentence contains one claim. The second statement puts forth a second claim that denies the truth of the first claim. The third sentence gives an example of how the first claim isn't true, since we have courts appealing to moral beliefs in applying the law, which would be difficult to reconcile with the notion that the law tries to establish the moral beliefs (fabric).

Is it in fact the case that the two claims can be complimentary (the primary function of law is to order society, but it can simultaneously be instituted in part to establish a moral fabric)?

What also threw me off for A was the 'takes into account the beliefs of the people governed by those laws', however I took the evidence of courts treating moral beliefs as grounds for exceptions as an example of 'takes into account the beliefs of the people enforcing the laws', and not 'governed by those laws' (though I guess the judges of the highest courts are governed by the law as well).

Did anyone else face a similar issue?

[Last_lsat]

I was thrown off because I thought the position in the first sentence, 'Some argue that laws are instituted at least in part to help establish a particular moral fabric in society', was being argued against (the 'But' indicator to start the following sentence gave me that impression). In that case, the logical opposite of 'at least in part' is not at all, or devoid.

How exactly is this argument structured? My interpretation was that the first sentence contains one claim. The second statement puts forth a second claim that denies the truth of the first claim. The third sentence gives an example of how the first claim isn't true, since we have courts appealing to moral beliefs in applying the law, which would be difficult to reconcile with the notion that the law tries to establish the moral beliefs (fabric).

Is it in fact the case that the two claims can be complimentary (the primary function of law is to order society, but it can simultaneously be instituted in part to establish a moral fabric)?

What also threw me off for A was the 'takes into account the beliefs of the people governed by those laws', however I took the evidence of courts treating moral beliefs as grounds for exceptions as an example of 'takes into account the beliefs of the people enforcing the laws', and not 'governed by those laws' (though I guess the judges of the highest courts are governed by the law as well).

Did anyone else face a similar issue?

This explained everything!! Great!!

[Mab6q]

This question is asking us to draw an inference (a "soft" one, since it's a "most strongly supported" inference question). So, the stimulus doesn't necessarily have an argument within it.

In this case, the stimulus boils down to this:

Some people say that laws are partly to set up morals.

The primary function of laws are to order society.

The highest courts have sometimes treated moral beliefs as a reason to make an exception to a law.

The correct answer, (A), is the most provable. The high courts, in making exceptions to laws because of religious beliefs has taken into account the beliefs of those the law governs.

(B) is too extreme - devoid of moral aims?!

(C) is an extrapolation - we don't know what the highest courts tend to do.

(D) is a normative statement - we're not able to infer any opinions from the stimulus about what should or should not be.

(E) has a degree issue - the best way? hunh?

I hope that clears it up.

With regards to D and normative ACs on inference questions, when is okay to select a normative AC? If it is a inference question with a conclusion, and the normative statement centers around what conclusion says, would it be okay?

Thanks.

[maryadkins]

If it is a inference question with a conclusion, and the normative statement centers around what conclusion says, would it be okay?

Yep. As long as the normative language matches the normative language. You can't infer a "should" from a "can/could/does/will" etc.

[james.kim528]

I know I am a little late to the party, but I don't see how (A) could be correct.
I know now that all the other AC choices are wrong, but I can't seem to see how (A) can be warranted.

(A) States that the highest court takes into account the moral beliefs of the people governed by those laws.

The only premise in the stimulus that comes close to warranting this is the last sentence, but the last sentence does not answer this because it says that the highest court have on occasion treated moral beliefs based on conscience or religious faith for making exceptions in the application of laws.

In my understanding conscience and religious faith is subjective, meaning that they treated moral beliefs based on their own view and not of the people governed by the laws, and we do not know if the highest court and the people governed by the laws have the same conscience or religious faith.

Therefore, we do not know if the highest court has taken into account the moral beliefs of the people governed by those laws. All we know is that they have taken their own moral beliefs into account, which may not be the same as the people governed by the law.

Can someone please show me what I'm not understanding?

Thanks