Logical Reasoning

PT155 · S2 · Q16 Philosopher: Groups are not

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

Philosopher: Groups are not the type of entity that can be worthy of praise or blame.

Main Conclusion

If you're trying to praise or blame a group, you need to cast that statement in terms of individuals, if we're gonna properly evaluate your claim.

Intermediate Conclusion

Groups are not a type of entity that you can praise or blame.

Evidence

Blaming something requires that the thing has conscience and agency (an ability to decide for themselves).

Nations don't have consciences. Families are not agents.

Evaluate

On Role questions, it's unusual for the last claim of the paragraph to be the Main Conclusion (only about 10% of the time), but we know it's a conclusion from the fact that it's prefaced by Hence.

On Role questions, it's very common for the first claim of the paragraph to be the Main Conclusion, and the first claim of this paragraph is a conclusion, since we immediately start unpacking / supporting it with the 2nd and 3rd sentences.

To figure out the relationship between those two conclusions (the first and last claim) we can use the Support Test. Which one would be a supporting idea for the other?

why should we believe that groups aren't the sort of entity you can praise/blame?

why should we believe that if we want to praise or blame a group, we have to translate that into a statement about individuals, or else we can't evaluate it properly?

When we ask the 2nd question, the 1st claim actually sounds like Support.

Why should we re-cast praise or blame about a group into statements about individuals? Because, groups aren't the sort of entity you can praise or blame.

This is how we know the first claim is subordinate to the last claim.

Goal

We're being asked about the 3rd sentence, which was a premise. If we wanted to get more specific, it was a premise helping to support the Intermediate Conclusion.

16.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the philosopher's argument by the claim that nations do not have consciences?

It is an intermediate conclusion
Wrong Role
To test whether something is an Intermediate Conclusion, just ask yourself, "Why should I believe this?" If you can point to any claim in the argument and say, "because, [this claim]", then the claim you were testing was a conclusion. If you can't find a supporting claim, it's not a conclusion. Why should I believe that ... nations do not have consciences? There isn't any premise offered for that.
7% picked this
Correct
It is offered as support
Why this is right
The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th sentences combine to flow into the 1st sentence. - If something doesn't have a conscience or doesn't have agency, then it can't be blamed. - Nations don't have consciences (can't be blamed). - Family are not agents (can't be blamed). Thus - Groups (like nations and families) aren't the sort of thing that can be praised or blamed. Hence - If we're trying to praise a blame a group, we better translate that into praise or blame for individuals.
Skill tested: Role · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
77% picked this
It is cited as an
Reversed
The main conclusion is an implication of the Intermediate Conclusion, which is an implication of the premises. And the claim we're being asked about is a Premise. The verb "implies" is the same as the → of reasoning. Premise —implies→ Conclusion.
5% picked this
It is cited as an
Wrong Role
"An instance of a general claim" is the same as an example of a general claim. We did have two general conclusions drawn within the argument: Intermed Conc: groups aren't the sort of entity that can be praised or blamed. An instance of that would sound like "for instance, nations can't be praised or blamed. Families can't be praised or blamed." Main Conc: praise or blame for a group should be translated into statements about individuals. An instance of that would be like, "for instance, if you're trying to praise New Zealand for its handling of COVID, you should really name specific individuals that deserve praise."
10% picked this
It is the main conclusion
Wrong Role
The final claim is the main conclusion. The 2nd, 3rd, and 4th sentences combine to flow into the 1st sentence. - If something doesn't have a conscience or doesn't have agency, then it can't be blamed. - Nations don't have consciences (can't be blamed). - Family are not agents (can't be blamed). Thus - Groups (like nations and families) aren't the sort of thing that can be praised or blamed. Hence - If we're trying to praise a blame a group, we better translate that into praise or blame for individuals.
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