Q26

[sumukh09]

What makes D a better answer than E?

[ohthatpatrick]

When you see a question stem in RC that sounds like:
the author mentioned X in order to
the author's reference to Y serves to
the author used the phrase Z primarily to

... there is a very consistent pattern. The question is usually NOT testing you on what was literally said in X, Y, or Z (in this case in lines 44-49).

INSTEAD, these questions are testing us on the nearby context. They're really asking:

"What's the broader idea that came right before this line reference?"
or
"What's the author trying to convey in this paragraph ?"

So what IS the function of the third paragraph?

Well, hopefully you noticed that lines 22-23 are the author's thesis/main point. The author is defending philosophical anarchism (PA) against the criticism that PA leads to two counterintuitive implications.

In the 2nd paragraph, the author shows how PA doesn't lead to the first implication.

In the 3rd paragraph, the author shows how PA doesn't lead to the second implication.

What's the second implication? That since PA believes that there is no moral obligation to obey laws, PA believes that people may do as they please without scruple.

In the 3rd paragraph, our author is trying to argue that PA is NOT saying people may do as they please without scruple.

Lines 44-47 are telling us, "PA does not believe you have a moral requirement to obey laws, but PA does hold that you have a positive moral obligation to care for other people."

Choice (D) rephrases this as "PA holds that people are subject to substantial moral obligations".

Choice (E) paraphrases the previous sentence.

This is where LSAT is being really cruel to those of us who have picked up on its patterns (and reminding us that we can't be rigid in using patterns ... we must stay flexible and attentive).

Normally, "in order to" / "serves to" / "primarily to" answers DO just reinforce the previous sentence, but that's when the previous sentence is a broad idea and the sentence being asked about is a specific example of that broad idea.

Here, the previous sentence is not a broader version of lines 44-49.

Rather, they are both making two equal points to reinforce a broader thought.

BROAD THOUGHT - Even though PA doesn't require you to obey laws, it's not true that PA allows you to behave without scruple.
-- point 1: you must still refrain from harming others (which happens to coincide with criminal rules in most legal systems)
-- point 2: you should actually care for other people

Point 1 is saying "don't hurt". Point 2 is saying "do help". Together, they show us that PA does in fact require scrupulous behavior.

So, (E) is a trap answer here based on simply rephrasing the previous sentence. (D), meanwhile, is an answer that not only relates to what 44-49 actually talk about (what we should do, not what we shouldn't do) but also reinforces the broader point of the 3rd paragraph.

Hope this helps.

[jewels0602]

So, just to be clear, where there is a question about the primary function of a phrase or a word, we should try to define its function in context of the paragraph it's in (unless the of course the question stem itself asks for its purpose within the passage).

I'm just wondering when the question stem is left open ended.

Thanks!

[ohthatpatrick]

On LSAT, technically everything is a case-by-case basis.

The test is full of patterns/tendencies, but every test also contains curveballs and twists that require us to think flexibly.

So, yes, the tendency for "serves to / primarily to / in order to" is simply to reinforce the bigger claim that comes right before or after the detail.

On older tests, it was almost always the previous sentence. But there are some exceptions where the detail comes first and the payoff sentence comes next.

It's usually also fruitful to just remind yourself of the function of THAT paragraph that you're looking at.

You almost never leave the paragraph for justification. The only time I've seen that happen is when they ask about the first sentence of a paragraph, and that first sentence refers to the final sentence of the previous paragraph.

f.e. new paragraph begins with something like "One manner in which we can see that this is true is with the case of the Robinsons ...."

The author discusses the Robinsons primarily to?

(A) Illustrate the claim that [final sentence of the previous paragraph]

[MichaelC134]

I chose (E), but isn't one of the big reasons it is wrong because of the transition word "Moreover"? The answer could not be a paraphrase of the previous sentence because "moreover" indicates the transition to a separate thought?

The word "substantial" in (D) tripped me up because I could not find that explicitly stated.

Thanks.

[ohthatpatrick]

Yeah, "moreover" structurally indicates that we're making point #2 or 3 in a series of points supporting an original framing idea.

(FRAMING IDEA) Studying for LSAT is hard. Even if you're used to the English language, you still have to learn to read like a lawyer. Moreover, the Logic Games section bears no similarity to anything we've done in school previously.

"The author brought up Logic Games in order to"
(A) Substantiate the idea that you have to learn to read like a lawyer
(B) Substantiate the idea that studying for LSAT is hard


(B).