Logical Reasoning

PT130 · S1 · Q26 Philosopher: Wolves do not tolerate

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: Wolves do not tolerate an attack by one wolf on another if the latter wolf demonstrates submission by baring its throat.

Conclusion

You can't say that "animals don't have rights" based on the notion that "only humans can obey moral rules".

Evidence

Foxes, dogs, and wolves all follow a rule that .

Evaluation

We just need to describe the type of evidence or type of move the author made. The author supplied a specific example of a non-human animal that appears to follow some sort of moral rule, in order to make a very general conclusion. The author's conclusion isn't saying that animals do or don't have rights; it's saying you can't argue that animals don't have right based on the notion that animals can't follow moral rules ... because I just showed you an example of animals following moral rules.

Goal

Look for an answer that describes the conclusion as rejecting an argument or rejecting the basis for a certain general conclusion, and that describes the evidence as a specific example that seems to contradict that basis.

26.

The philosopher's argument proceeds by attempting to

  1. Correct

    provide counterexamples to refute a

    Why this is right

    Tough language to parse here. Here's a color coded version of how stuff matches up: Other people have thought to themselves (erroneously, according to our author) ... "Only human beings are capable of obeying moral rules. Therefore, animals do not have rights." Their conclusion "animals do not have rights" is based on their premise that "only humans can obey moral rules". Our author is providing counterexamples to refute that premise. Wolves, foxes, and dogs appear to follow a moral rule that "if your adversary demonstrates submission, then you shouldn't continue to attack them".

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

    61% picked this

  2. establish inductively that all animals

    Too Strong: "all animals"

    The author doesn't need to and isn't trying to establish that all animals possess morality, just that at least some non-human animals possess morality.

    10% picked this

  3. cast doubt on the principle

    Bad Premise Match

    The author doesn't attack the legitimacy of the principle. He might accept that you can't have rights unless you're capable of obeying moral rules. He's only attacking people who might be thinking that "only humans are capable of obeying moral rules", by providing examples of non-humans that seem to be obeying moral rules.

    12% picked this

  4. establish a claim by showing

    Bad Conclusion + Premise Match

    Did this answer choice read the same paragraph about wolves that we did? The evidence didn't sound anything like "were we to deny this claim, we would be contradicting ourselves"; it sounded like "wolves would exile a dude if he broke the bare throat rule".

    16% picked this

  5. provide evidence suggesting that the

    Opposite

    The author is suggesting that morality is being applied too narrowly. He's objecting to people who narrowly think that only humans are capable of following moral rules. He's suggesting that concept should be applied more broadly, since wolves/dogs/foxes seem to obey a moral rule.

    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