Logical Reasoning

PT105 · S1 · Q17 The difference between manners and

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

The difference between manners and morals is that the former are necessarily social in nature whereas the latter are not necessarily social in nature.

Statements

Manners/etiquette are always social.

Morals are not necessarily social (i.e. at least sometimes morals are not social)

The rules of manners/etiquette do not apply when one is alone.

Evaluate

The author has made a distinction and said a couple strong ideas.

Manners/etiquette (same meaning) are always social, so the last sentence is taking that contrapositive and thinking,

Meanwhile, since morals are not necessarily social in nature, there is at least one moral rule that isn't dependent on other people, and thus at least one moral rule probably still applies even when we're alone.

Goal

It's hard to know what to predict here, but my guess would be that it will relate to the idea that morality might still apply when we're alone.

17.

The statements above, if true, most strongly support which one of the following inferences?

  1. Correct

    One could be immoral without

    Why this is right

    This goes one implication further than where we had predicted. We were thinking that they would test the idea that, some moral rules do not depend on their being a 2nd party (they are not social in nature) If there are some moral rules that apply even when we're alone, then it's possible for us to be immoral all by ourselves, which means "one can be immoral without ever having caused any other person any harm". There could be a moral rule, for example, that "one should not needlessly damage their body with excessive drug abuse", and thus even if you moved away to a remote cabin and didn't see anyone but yourself and your drugs, you could be immoral without causing harm to anyone but yourself.

    Skill tested: Most Supported · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    56% picked this

  2. No immoral act could be

    Too Strong: never overlap

    The opening sentence is saying that there is some divergence between manners and morals, whereas this sentence is saying there isn't any overlap. It's possible that walking up to your best friend, at their wedding, and kissing their partner on the lips while confessing your secret crush on them is both immoral and a breach of etiquette.

    14% picked this

  3. The rules of morality apply

    Too Strong: only when

    We would have been happy to pick something that said, the rules of morality can apply also when one is alone. That we know. This is saying that as soon as you are near someone else, there are no moral rules governing your behavior?!

    4% picked this

  4. It is more important to

    Out of Scope: more important

    There isn't any language that would support a comparative judgment about which of these two things is more important. We're only comparing them on the level of necessarily social vs. not necessarily social.

    2% picked this

  5. What is social in nature

    Too Strong: could not be

    This answer means the same thing as (C), so it knocks both of them out of the running. We would have been happy to pick something that said, what is not social in nature could still be a matter of morality. That we know. This is saying that as soon as you are near someone else, there are no moral rules governing your behavior?!

    25% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free