Logical Reasoning

PT110 · S2 · Q6 The notion that one might

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

The notion that one might be justified in behaving irrationally in the service of a sufficiently worthy end is incoherent.

Conclusion

The notion that is incoherent.

i.e. Behaving irrationally is sort of the opposite of serving a sufficiently worthy end.

Evidence (for)

If any action is justified → you'd be (any end is sufficiently worthy) acting rational

Evaluate

It helps our ability to understand this argument if know that saying two claims are incoherent or inconsistent means that they contradict each other.

If we know the author's conclusion is, , then we go searching the evidence for a discussion of each concept.

We have to put in some effort to see the matching symbols of "sufficiently worthy end" and "justified action", but since this is a Parallel question with a conditional rule, we would assume that there are going to be repeating symbols that would allow us to convert this into an algebraic recipe.

Goal

We're looking for something like this ...

Prem: If A, then B Conc: The notion that one might be ~B while being A is incoherent.

6.

Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its reasoning to the argument above?

  1. A representative of the law,

    Bad Conclusion Match

    The conclusion of this argument is normative. It's saying that "someone who is A ought / should not do B." Our original conclusion was just saying that a claim was self-contradicting. There wasn't any moral judging in it. If the conclusion doesn't match the type and strength of the original conclusion, it's not worth reading (on a first pass, at least).

    13% picked this

  2. Correct

    One cannot intend to spill

    Why this is right

    This argument is concluding that "intentionally spilling a glass" contradicts the idea of "spilling a class accidentally". So the evidence should show that doing one is the opposite of the doing the other, and that's what is does. Prem: If A, then B spill accidentally ? unintentional intentional ? spill accidentally. Conc: The notion that one might be ~B while being A is incoherent. The notion that one might be intentional while spilling accidentally is incoherent. The original conclusion could have been rephrased, "You cannot behave irrationally in the serve of a sufficiently worthy end". Since the author is arguing that X and Y are contradictory, it can be expressed as "You can't be X while you're doing Y", or vice versa.

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

    76% picked this

  3. One cannot live the good

    Bad Evidence Match

    This argument is concluding a contradiction between "living the good life" and "being unhappy". So the evidence should say, "If you're living the good life, you're happy" or "If you're unhappy, then you're not living the good life." Instead, it talks about whether or not "our neighbors see that one is unhappy" and whether "our neighbors see that we are living the good life or not".

    9% picked this

  4. Doctors cannot perform self-diagnosis, for

    Bad Evidence Match

    This argument is concluding a contradiction between "being a doctor" and "performing a self-diagnosis". So the evidence should say, "If you're a doctor, you can't self-diagnose" or "If you're self-diagnosing, then you're not a doctor". Instead, it just says that doctors aren't objective about themselves and will be practicing poor medicine.

    2% picked this

  5. One ought not to have

    Bad Conclusion Match

    The conclusion of this argument is normative. It's saying that "we ought / should not do B." Our original conclusion was just saying that a claim was self-contradicting. There wasn't any moral judging in it. If the conclusion doesn't match the type and strength of the original conclusion, it's not worth reading (on a first pass, at least).

    1% 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