LSAT 157 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q21

LR Question 21 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Essayist: Commitment to relationships or careers is commonly…

QUESTION TYPE: Principle

CONCLUSION: Commitments should be seen as morally neutral instead of virtuous.

REASONING: People can be committed to good or bad things, such as a relationship that provides no benefit. Commitment is really just involvement that has outlasted its original justification.

ANALYSIS: The author is really bending over backwards for this point. They think that something cannot be virtuous if it provides no benefit to anyone. They also say that because some commitments aren’t good, all commitments should be viewed as neutral – almost a “one bad apple spoils the bunch” view. We need a principle that justifies this perspective.

___________

1. This tells us about morally neutral commitments, but does not give us a rule that classifies all commitments as morally neutral.
2. If the author followed this principle, they would conclude that commitment is virtuous if it is aimed at a good career or relationship. But that’s not their conclusion – they say all commitments are neutral.
3. This is similar to B, in that it categorizes some commitments. But we need something that classifies all commitments as neutral.
4. This answer tells us that some commitments are not virtuous. But like B and C, we need to show that all commitments are neutral.
5. CORRECT. This choice allows us to lump all commitments in as neutral – even the good and bad ones. This leads to the author’s conclusion.

Recap: The question begins with “Essayist: Commitment to relationships or careers is commonly”. It is a Principle question. Learn how to master LSAT Principle questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.