Logical Reasoning

PT122 · S4 · Q21 Ethicist: People who avoid alcoholic

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

Ethicist: People who avoid alcoholic beverages simply because they regard them as a luxury beyond their financial means should not be praised for their abstinence.

Claims

If you're avoiding alcohol just because you can't afford it, then you shouldn't be praised for your abstinence.

If you're avoiding alcohol because you never had any desire to partake of it, you shouldn't be praised for your abstinence.

(If you struggled through self-discipline to get to a point to where you eradicated your desire to partake of alcohol, then maybe we can praise your abstinence)

Evaluate / Goal

This was not an argument. The question stem indicates that these are just "claims". But if we want to think of a principle that would tie these claims together it should sound something like,

So something like,

21.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the ethicist's claims?

  1. Whether behavior should be regarded

    Bad Match: consequences / context

    The only factors being mentioned in terms of whether a behavior is praiseworthy or not are - can you afford it - do you (or did you) desire it

    7% picked this

  2. A person should be blamed

    Bad Match: blame

    These principles have nothing to do with whether or not someone should be "blamed" for something. They are about whether or not someone should be "praised" for something. We wouldn't be able to move from a rule that says, "X should not be blamed" to the idea of "X should be praised". There's a huge middle ground between blame and praise.

    3% picked this

  3. Correct

    A person is praiseworthy for

    Why this is right

    The "only if" points us to the right side of the arrow, so this rule would look like this: Praiseworthy in order to abstain, person for abstaining ? had to overcome a desire from alcohol to drink alcohol and feels they can afford to drink alcohol The contrapositive is the form that feels more like the principles the ethicist was presenting. you don't feel like you can afford to do X you are not or ? praiseworthy for X you didn't overcome a desire to do X This answer helps to justify each of the two claims the ethicist made.

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

    80% picked this

  4. The extent to which the

    Bad Conclusion Match No Impact

    This provides what feels like an Inference / Necessary Assumption embedded in the second claim, but this has no power to prove certain people "should not be praised", since it doesn't even include that wording. It also only relates to the second of the ethicist's claims, so it will definitely be beat by the correct answer, which addresses both.

    5% picked this

  5. The apportionment of praise and

    Out of Scope

    Out of Scope: blame / ease of life We don't care about blame, only praise, but technically these answers can't be wrong by saying "too much" (since we're being asked "which answer, if valid, does the most"). The bigger problem is that the ethicist never talks about who easy or difficult a life people are living. The author uses the word "arduous" specifically about "a process in which someone who likes alcohol disciplines themselves to refrain from that desire".

    5% 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