LSAT 155 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q16

LR Question 16 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Philosopher: Groups are not the type of entity that can be worthy…

QUESTION TYPE: Role in Argument

CONCLUSION: To be evaluated properly, any ascription of praise or blame to a group must be translated into a statement about individuals.

REASONING: Blameworthiness implies consciousness and agency. Nations don’t have consciences, and families aren’t agents. Groups aren’t the type of entity that can be worthy of praise or blame.

ANALYSIS: This is a bit of an obtuse argument. I’ve rearranged it above to be in a more typical structure. The sentence about how blameworthiness cannot be ascribed to groups is an intermediate conclusion, supported by the idea that blameworthiness implies consciousness and agency. The author uses examples: Nations cannot have consciences, and families cannot be agents. These examples are used as support for that intermediate conclusion.

___________

1. This is not a conclusion. You can tell because there’s no support for it. It supports an intermediate conclusion.
2. CORRECT. See above.
3. This is not an implication of the main conclusion. The conclusion is that ascriptions of praise or blame must be translated, and that doesn’t lead to the idea that nations cannot have consciences.
4. This is not an instance of a general conclusion drawn. This is a fact that is used to support another part of the argument.
5. The main conclusion is not that nations don’t have consciences.

Recap: The question begins with “Philosopher: Groups are not the type of entity that can be worthy”. It is a Role in Argument question. Learn more about LSAT Role questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.