LSAT 130 | Section 1 | Logical Reasoning: Q26

LR Question 26 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Philosopher: Wolves do not tolerate an attack by one wolf

QUESTION TYPE: Method of Reasoning

CONCLUSION: We would be wrong to say “animals don’t have rights because only humans can obey moral rules.”

REASONING: Wolves, foxes and domesticated dogs don’t allow attacks on a fellow member of their species which has shown its throat and submitted.

ANALYSIS: It’s helpful to explicitly consider the opposing argument. Basically, the author is attacking the premise in an opposing argument by using wolves as a counterexample.

Opposing argument: Animals can’t obey moral rules. So they don’t deserve rights.

Philosopher: Actually, animals can obey moral rules. Look at the case of wolves. So your evidence is incorrect and can’t prove your conclusion.

___________

1. CORRECT. See the analysis above. The premise is “animals can’t obey moral rules.” The opposing argument is “and therefore animals don’t deserve rights.” The counterexample is “look at the case of wolves!”
2. The philosopher didn’t say that all animals are moral. They only pointed to the examples of wolves, foxes and domesticated dogs.
3. Actually, the author implies that obeying moral rules may be a precondition to rights. Otherwise, why would they think it important to point out that wolves can obey moral rules?
4. This is different. It means “My argument must be true, because if it were false there would be an impossible situation.”
5. The author didn’t say morality is too broadly implied. In fact, by showing that wolves behave morally, they seem to accept that we should apply morality to animals.