Logical Reasoning

PT107 · S4 · Q18 All actions are motivated by self-interest

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

Start practicing free

All actions are motivated by self-interest, since any action that is apparently altruistic can be described in terms of self-interest.

Conclusion

All actions are motivated by self-interest.

Intermediate Conclusion (since)

Any action that is apparently altruistic can be described in terms of self-interest.

Evidence (for example)

Helping someone can be described in terms of self-interest: the action might be motivated by hope for a reward or other personal benefit to be bestowed in recognition of being helpful.

Evaluate

Since nothing here seems to resemble any of the 10 Famous Flaws, let's just try to argue the Anti-Conclusion.

How could we accept the evidence but argue that "not all actions are motivated by self-interest" ... i.e., ?

If I'm walking out of a restaurant and some dude is walking in, I might hold the door open for them, to be nice. Isn't that action motivated by a desire to help others, not by self-interest?

The author is saying, .

I can just say,

Goal

The author seems to think that because she can describe my action in terms of self-interest that my action is, in fact, due to self-interest.

I don't have to accept that. A pencil could be described as a letter-opener, because you could use it to open an envelope, but that doesn't suddenly make it correct to say, .

18.

Which one of the following most accurately describes an error in the argument's reasoning?

  1. The term “self-interest” is allowed

    Not Equivocation

    This describes one of the 10 Famous Flaws, equivocation, in which a term or concept is used two different times to mean two very different things. This answer is almost always wrong. The term "self-interest" was used consistently in this paragraph. It always meant "concerned with benefiting oneself".

    5% picked this

  2. Correct

    The argument takes evidence showing

    Why this is right

    This answer is structured like, takes evidence showing X to constitute evidence showing Y. We would want X to match the evidence and Y to match the conclusion. Was the evidence showing that something could be true? Yeah, it said that all actions that appear altruistic could really be motivated by self-interest (such as the desire for a reward or other benefit). Is the conclusion acting like it's a true statement to say that "all actions that appear altruistic are really motivated by self-interest"? Yes! Because the author is saying there's no such thing as an altruistic action. All actions are motivated by self-interest. When we tried to argue the Anti-Conclusion ("some actions aren't motivated by self-interest"), we thought of a potential example of an action (holding the door open for someone) that isn't motivated by any self-interest. The author's response to that is, "Yes, but that apparently altruistic action could be described as self-interested". And we are saying back to him what this answer is saying: just because it could be described that way doesn't mean that it's accurate to describe it that way.

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

    71% picked this

  3. The argument does not explain

    Not an Objection

    We don't really ever see correct answers on Flaw that are complaining that the author failed to provide a specific measurement, a specific number, a specific definition, the names of the people it alludes to generally. We all know what the English words "reward" and "personal benefit" mean. The author isn't being specific about what those rewards or benefits could be because she doesn't necessarily have any specific reward or benefit in mind (she's being vague to allow for the fact that it could be any number of different potential rewards or benefits). We probably didn't react to this argument by angrily saying, "Heyyyy, what do you mean by reward?"

    1% picked this

  4. The argument ignores the possibility

    Out of Scope

    Out of Scope: necessary to be a motivation This answer is using language that sounds like the #1 Famous Flaw, Necessary vs. Sufficient, in which the author presents a conditional logic premise and then uses that rule in an illegally reversed or negated fashion to arrive at the conclusion. This argument's 2nd claim could be construed as a conditional premise: Action appears ? could be describe in altruistic terms of self-interest But the argument doesn't proceed to say, "Action X could be described in terms of self-interest. Therefore, action X must appear to be altruistic" (that would be an illegal reversal). Nor does it say, "Action X did not appear altruistic. Thus, action X cannot be described in terms of self-interest" (illegal negation). So we know it's not committing a Nec vs. Suff error. The answer uses fails to consider / ignores the possibility, so we can ask ourselves whether the idea that follows would weaken. Can we say, "hey, author -- what you think is necessary for a certain interest to be a motivation is really sufficient"? Does the author think that something is necessary for self-interest to be a motivation? No, there's nothing that says "For an action to be motivated by self-interest, it must be true that ." Since this description doesn't apply to anything in the argument, this can't be a valid objection.

    23% picked this

  5. The argument depends for its

    Out of Scope: emotional content

    This refers to one of the 10 Famous Flaws, Inappropriate Appeal (to Emotion), in which the author tries to persuade us not through facts and logic but through pity / fear / sympathy. The example cited seems to have almost no emotional content, and the author certainly isn't depending solely on the emotional content of the example.

    0% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

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

Save and practice this skill
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