Logical Reasoning

PT121 · S1 · Q4 Philosopher: We should not disapprove

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

Philosopher: We should not disapprove of the unearthing of truths that we would rather not acknowledge or that, by their dissemination, might influence society in pernicious ways.

Principle

If there's a truth that we'd we should not rather not acknowledge, → disapprove of or that might influence that truth society in pernicious ways being unearthed if it were disseminated

Evaluate

Writing this principle as a conditional is definitely not necessary, maybe not even recommended. We wrote it that way mainly out of the force of habit that most principles are conditionals. But this doesn't feel as much like a set of instructions for "if this is true, then that is true", and more like an expression of tolerance / values.

The philosopher is saying we should just accept the truth, no matter how ugly or uncomfortable it is.

Unearthing = discovering dissemination = spreading widely pernicious = harmful

If a journalist discovers something that makes us uncomfortable (like drone strikes killing civilians during Obama's presidency), we shouldn't get mad at the journalist for publicizing that.

If we discover something true that would harm society if it became widely known, we should tolerate it.

The truth is the truth. We should accept it and not criticize anyone spreading it.

Goal

Look for something where there's a potentially ugly / dangerous truth, but the paragraph is saying we should tolerate / accept learning this truth and letting this truth spread.

4.

Which one of the following conforms most closely to the principle stated by the philosopher?

  1. A law enforcement officer should

    Bad Match

    Illegally obtained information is potentially true information. So this principle would say we shouldn't disapprove of someone publicizing this information or obtaining it in the first place. But instead it's saying that a cop should not act upon this info. That doesn't match the principle at all.

    3% picked this

  2. Correct

    Scientific research should not be

    Why this is right

    Scientific research potentially involves the unearthing of truths. So this principle would say we shouldn't be mad at science if it discovers something that we find uncomfortable or potentially harmful. This answer is talking about knowledge that, once disseminated, could lead to pernicious things for society (harmful applications). And the value judgment is "X should not be restricted", which is somewhere in the ballpark of "should not disapprove of X". It's a stretchy answer but the best available match.

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

    79% picked this

  3. A physician should never withhold

    Weak Match

    The first half of this seems to fit the principle, because it's conveying the idea of "let's just face the truth". But the exception cited has no match for the original principle. And "We should not disapprove of this truth coming out" is pretty different from "physicians should not keep the truth from coming out". The former is about us, not having a critical reaction to the truth, once it's come out. The latter is about some specific group of people keeping the truth from coming out.

    4% picked this

  4. Investigative journalists who employ illegal

    Weak Match

    The first clause of this answer is a great match, since it's saying "WE should not disapprove of people who unearth truths". But ... this is a conditional claim. This answer is saying "we shouldn't disapprove as long as revealing that info does more good than harm". That's not a match for the principle. The principle was saying, "even if it does more harm than good, we still shouldn't disapprove of the truth coming out".

    14% picked this

  5. A poem need not adhere

    Bad Match

    This has nothing to do with uncomfortable truths coming out. In fact, it's telling poets that they can feel free to not tell the truth.

    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