Q9 - Mary Ann: Our country should

[zl7391e]

Hey guys,
I don't understand why (A) is not a necessary assumption that underlies Inez' argument.

In Inez's argument, one key premise states that "if the actions are morally good, the country is admirable. " Let P=the actions are morally good, and Q= the country is admirable (for simplicity reason). Thus, we have the following conditional

If P, then Q.

We know that the scenario [P is true but Q is false] would make the conditional "if P then Q" false. If the answer choice (A) is false, that is, no country is admirable, then when the antecedent P is true, the consequent Q would be false. The conditional"”if P then Q"”is hence false. In other words, when actions are morally good, the country is not admirable, since no country is admirable. This makes the conditional "if the actions are morally good, the country is admirable" false. Therefore, it's dispensable that the consequent Q of the conditional can be true, which requires at least one country being admirable.

If answer choice (C) is false, on the other hand, then the antecedent P is false. But this does not make the conditional "if P, then Q" false. For example, consider "if Tom scores a 180 on the LSAT, Tom will get into XYZ law school." Now, supposed that Tom died in a tragic car accident before taking the LSAT. Thus, the antecedent that Tom scores a 180 can never be met, but this does not make the conditional false.

Nevertheless, I understand Not-(C) would make the action Inez's prescribes--judging a country by the morality of its actions--ineffective. But I don't understand why (A) is not an assumption in Inez's argument. I truly appreciate your help if you could help clarify my confusions! Thank you!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Wow! Nice thought process, but unfortunately one of your very first steps was wrong and so it was all for not. One of the first steps we learn in class is identifying the argument core: what is the evidence? and what is the conclusion?

Inez's conclusion is that "we should judge a country by the morality of its actions." One way to help see that is the word "should." It's a subjective claim.

The evidence is that, "if the actions are morally good, the country is admirable."

After identifying the argument core, we're looking for an assumption in drawing the conclusion. Clearly, to conclude that we should judge a country by the morality of its actions, it must be possible to assign moral weight to the actions of countries - answer choice (C).

But a conditional statement never depends on the truth of either of the conditions involved in the relationship - it's a hypothetical "what if."

So A ---> B does not need either A or B to be true. In fact it could be the case that both A and B are always false!

(A) does not need to be true. It could be the case that no nations are admirable. That would mean that no nation is morally good, but that would be a way of determining that.
(B) need not be assumed. A country could be both strong and moral.
(D) is irrelevant. What people believe about their countries is not relevant to whether those countries are actually morally good.
(E) need not be assumed. The argument never suggested by which country's standards one should assess the morality of a country's actions.

Hope that helps and let me know if you have any more questions on this one!

[zl7391e]

Thank you, mshermn!

I don't quite understand this part.

"But a conditional statement never depends on the truth of either of the conditions involved in the relationship - it's a hypothetical "what if."

So A ---> B does not need either A or B to be true. In fact it could be the case that both A and B are always false!"

I thought the truth condition of "A-->B" does depend on the truth conditions of A and B. Here is my reference (which talks about the truth value of the conditional):
[url]http://regentsprep.org/Regents/math/geometry/GP1/ifthen.htm
[/url]
The following is a direct except of my reference

Your teacher tells you that "if you participate in class, then you will get extra points."
fact 1: "you participate in class."
fact 2: "you get participation points."

When is the teacher's statement true?

1. If you participate in class (fact 1 true) and you get extra points (fact 2 true)
then the teacher's statement is true.

2. If you participate in class (fact 1 true) and you do not get extra points
(fact 2 false), then the teacher did not tell the truth and the statement is false.

3. If you do not participate in class (fact 1 false), we cannot judge the truth
of the teacher's statement. The teacher did not tell you what would happen
if you did NOT participate in class. Since we cannot accuse the teacher of
making a false statement, we assign "true" to the statement.

"If you participate in class, then you will get extra points."
will be true in all cases except one:
when you participate in class and you do NOT get the extra points.

Conditionals are FALSE only when the first condition (if) is true and the second condition (then) is false. All other cases are TRUE.

I initially thought the argument requires (A) to be true, due to my concern that otherwise the conditional "if actions are morally good, the country is admirable" would be false when actions are good and (NOT-A) no country is admirable. But now I see the flaw in my reasoning. That's because NOT-A would not make the conditional false when the antecedent (that the actions are morally good) is false. So the argument does not necessarily require A; it only requires A when the antecedent of the conditional is true.

Thanks again for your help, mshermn! Your comments really helped clarify my thinking.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I don't quite understand this part.
Quote:
"But a conditional statement never depends on the truth of either of the conditions involved in the relationship - it's a hypothetical "what if."

So A ---> B does not need either A or B to be true. In fact it could be the case that both A and B are always false!"

You're absolutely correct that the truth of A does depend on the truth of B, but the relationship between A and B requires neither.

I initially thought the argument requires (A) to be true, due to my concern that otherwise the conditional "if actions are morally good, the country is admirable" would be false when actions are good and (NOT-A) no country is admirable. But now I see the flaw in my reasoning. That's because NOT-A would not make the conditional false when the antecedent (that the actions are morally good) is false. So the argument does not necessarily require A; it only requires A when the antecedent of the conditional is true.

This is exactly what I meant. Nice work. Let me know though if you have further questions on this one!

[matthew.mainen]

This seems like one of those questions where the assumption is so fundamental that it seems like the LSAT wouldn't even bother with listing it. How common are these kinds of answers?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Not very common. But you could probably find 20-30 examples that are similar. Remember that's 20-30 questions from a pool of 3,500.

[pewals13]

1) What is our task?

To determine what absolutely must be true for the premises of Inez's argument to have any chance at justifying its conclusion.

2) What is the conclusion?

We should judge a country by the morality of its actions, not by its strength (Intermediate Conclusion). If the actions are morally good, the country is admirable (Final Conclusion).

3) What is the support?

There are many examples in history of countries that were strong but used their strength to commit atrocities.

4) What is the gap?

This argument seemed to make some sense--I jumped into the answer choices without a clear understanding of the gap. Does morality equate with admirability?

5) Which answer choices are clearly wrong?

A) "At least one country is admirable"
This does not necessarily have to be true for the conclusion to hold based on the evidence. The argument only talks about the criteria that should be used to judge countries in regards to whether they are admirable, not whether there are any countries that actually meet the requirements.

B) "Countries cannot be both strong and moral"
It need not be true that strength and morality be incompatible qualities, only that morality should be the criteria upon which the admirability of nations is judged.

C) "It is possible to assign moral weight to the actions of countries"
If it is not possible to assign moral weight to the actions of countries--how could this be a criterion on which we judge their admirability? This must be true for the argument to have a shot at being true.

D) "The citizens of any country believe that whatever their country does is good"
What the citizens of a particular country believe appears to be entirely irrelevant.

E) "Countries should impose their standards of morality on other countries by whatever means necessary"
This has nothing to do with what criteria should be used to judge the admirability of particular countries.

6) Select the correct answer:

C) NEGATION: It is not possible to assign moral weight to the actions of countries
If it is not possible to assign moral weight to the actions of countries, how can it be used as a criterion to judge their admirability? This is the correct answer.

[echo_rainkey]

I get confused about this question.
For me, the argument core is as follows:
Premise--- if the actions are morally good, the country is admirable.
Conclusion--- we should judge a country by the morality of its actions.

I cannot see any gap in-between the premise and conclusion. Thus I choose B as a defender for the assumption.

Could anyone figure out my error in the thinking above and why B is incorrect?
Thanks!

[echo_rainkey]

thanks!
you said the conclusion is " "we should judge a country by the morality of its actions."
the evidence (premise) is "if the actions are morally good, the country is admirable."
Therefore, you said in order to conclude that "we should judge a country by the morality of its actions, it must be possible to assign moral weight to the actions of countries"

BUT, i think "we should judge a country by the morality of its actions, it must be possible to assign moral weight to the actions of countries" is not the assumption between the premise and conclusion here, rather an assumption for the evidence (premise) --- "if the actions are morally good, the country is admirable."
Am i right?

Wow! Nice thought process, but unfortunately one of your very first steps was wrong and so it was all for not. One of the first steps we learn in class is identifying the argument core: what is the evidence? and what is the conclusion?

Inez's conclusion is that "we should judge a country by the morality of its actions." One way to help see that is the word "should." It's a subjective claim.

The evidence is that, "if the actions are morally good, the country is admirable."

After identifying the argument core, we're looking for an assumption in drawing the conclusion. Clearly, to conclude that we should judge a country by the morality of its actions, it must be possible to assign moral weight to the actions of countries - answer choice (C).

But a conditional statement never depends on the truth of either of the conditions involved in the relationship - it's a hypothetical "what if."

So A ---> B does not need either A or B to be true. In fact it could be the case that both A and B are always false!

(A) does not need to be true. It could be the case that no nations are admirable. That would mean that no nation is morally good, but that would be a way of determining that.
(B) need not be assumed. A country could be both strong and moral.
(D) is irrelevant. What people believe about their countries is not relevant to whether those countries are actually morally good.
(E) need not be assumed. The argument never suggested by which country's standards one should assess the morality of a country's actions.

Hope that helps and let me know if you have any more questions on this one!