Logical Reasoning

PT157 · S3 · Q22 Philosopher: Philosophers usually treat

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: Philosophers usually treat emotions as nonrational.

Conclusion

Emotion is not nonrational.

Intermediate Conclusion

Emotion only seems nonrational way because language lacks the ability to convey adequate conceptions of emotion.

Evidence

The words we use to refer to emotions name only very general kinds of inner experience, such as excitement / calm / joy, but there is no language for describing just how one joy differs from another.

Evaluate

Whenever we do Main Conclusion / Role, we listen for Rebuttal/Pivot conclusions (most of them are that style) or First Sentence conclusions (the 2nd most common style).

Since this paragraph begins with an Attribution, "Philosophers usually think of emotions as X", we'd be waiting for a Pivot + Pushback, and so when we see "But emotion is not nonrational", we most likely have our rebuttal conclusion.

Everything after that is support for the main conclusion.

They're asking us about the last sentence, which is hella confusing because it's prefaced by Thus (which usually indicates conclusion) and by "for example" (which always indicates support).

How can the last claim be a conclusion and a premise?!

We need to remember that premise/conclusion indicator words can also be used to indicate Cause/Effect. /

That's why we see a Thus in front of this supporting idea. The previous sentence causes this last claim to be true. The fact that we have words for only general emotional states is why we don't have specific words for different types of joy.

Goal

We know this final claim plays a supporting role, and we know that the main conclusion is "Emotion is not nonrational", that's good enough to head to the answers.

22.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the philosopher's argument by the proposition that there is no language for describing just how one joy differs from another?

  1. It is an example of

    Bad Description

    When it comes to the main conclusion, the argument does not seek to explain a phenomenon. It seeks to oppose the idea that emotions are nonrational. Emotions are a phenomenon, but the author isn't trying to explain why emotions happen. She's just trying to classify them as rational or nonrational. (To explain a phenomenon means to provide a causal explanation for it) Within the subsidiary argument, the author is trying to provide a causal explanation for the phenomenon of why people think emotions are nonrational. But an example of that phenomenon would be a specific case where a person thought of an emotion as nonrational. The last sentence doesn't resemble that at all, so even if we were being charitable to this answer, it breaks down.

    27% picked this

  2. It is the main conclusion

    Wrong Role

    The main conclusion is that emotion is not nonrational. The target statement -- about one joy being indistinguishable from another in language -- is evidence supporting the general claim about language's limitations, which in turn supports the conclusion. The word "thus" before this statement might suggest it is a conclusion, but "for example" immediately overrides that signal, identifying the statement as an illustration. The conclusion appears earlier in the argument, not at the end.

    7% picked this

  3. Correct

    It is a specific instance

    Why this is right

    The target statement illustrates a specific instance of the general claim that emotion-words name only very general kinds of experience. "Joy" is a general word, and there is no language to capture how one joy differs from another -- that is a specific example of language's generality. This general claim about language, in turn, supports the conclusion that emotion is not nonrational but merely appears so because of linguistic limitations. The target statement thus indirectly supports the conclusion by illustrating the evidence that directly supports it.

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

    57% picked this

  4. It is a concession to

    Wrong Role

    A concession would acknowledge the opposing view's validity. The opposing view is that emotions are nonrational. The target statement -- about language's inability to distinguish joys -- does not concede that emotions are nonrational. Instead, it supports the argument's rebuttal of that view by showing that language is inadequate, which is why emotions merely appear nonrational. The target statement works against the opposing view, not in its favor.

    1% picked this

  5. It is the explanation proposed

    Wrong Role

    The explanation proposed for why emotions seem nonrational is that "language lacks the ability to convey adequate conceptions of emotion." That appears in the second sentence. The target statement -- about one joy being indistinguishable from another -- is an example illustrating that explanation, not the explanation itself. This answer confuses the general explanation with the specific illustration. The explanation is the broad claim about language; the target statement is one piece of supporting evidence for that claim.

    8% 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