RC Question 25 Explanation
DISCUSSION: The author seems to agree that those conversations are like confessions to a priest: they should be excluded from evidence on moral grounds and for reasons of privacy.
___________
- CORRECT. The author suggests that those conversations should also be excluded.
- These are modern objections. There were no social workers (as such) in Bentham’s time, so this could be hardly have been an objection made against him.
- We’re not really told what the conflict is. The author gives these two situations as an example, and we’re expected to know why the example is reasonable. But if the author wanted to “illustrate” a conflict then they would need to give more detail about why such discussions should be privileged.
- Huh? I don’t even know what this means…lines 47-48 mention social interests and social values, but the terms aren’t defined.
- Bentham’s principle excluded very few situations. The examples of parents and social workers are given to show that there may be other situations that should be excluded too.
Hey, I wanted to point out B). This was a killer for me and I really dived deep.
I do not think it’s a modern objection. The next sentence states “Despite concerns such as these, the approach […] began to prevail soon after Bentham’s death.” This implies that even though these concerns arose, it still became successful (all in the past, since it’s soon after his death in 19th century (since paragraph implies he was alive in 18th century).
I had a different reason for A being a better answer than B, even if B is ‘technically true’.
I strongly believe B is correct IF A didn’t exist.
As in, it’s technically true, but it’s not the MOST probable reason why.
Why? Because the question is asking intent, which means, two answers can be provable/true, but one will be a better guess than the other.
—-
First, an analogy:
– Jen drank apple juice. But shouldn’t she care about apple’s feelings? Despite this concern, Jen still drinks apple juice to this day.
Now, A vs B would look like:
– A. Jen drinking apple juice is questionable.
– B. It’s an example of why she shouldn’t drink apple juice.
Now, you can kinda see why A > B.
Sad face, :(, because B could have been true if A was a completely wrong answer.
[b]Why[/b] people disagree with Jen drinking apple juice is better of an answer than [b]what[/b] the disagreement is, because author’s intent is that it’s questionable, not that it’s wrong.
Asking for [b]intent[/b], not a provable truth:
– Is the author trying to prove “apple juice shouldn’t be drunk”, or continue explaining further of someone else saying this? then B is better. But author is NOT.
– Is the author trying to say “drinking apple juice is controversial”? then A is better. Author IS saying this.
I can see why B is tempting, but I wouldn’t go as far as to say it’s “technically true”. Here’s why:
The example of conversations between social workers and clients is a modern hypothetical. Social workers didn’t exist as a formal profession in Bentham’s time or shortly after his death, so this couldn’t have been a concern raised against him during that period. The author uses this example to explore how far Bentham’s principle could be applied, not to reference objections made at the time. This makes B incorrect because it misinterprets the context.
As for the phrase “Despite concerns such as these …”, it doesn’t mean the concern the author mentions were raised historically. Instead, it shows that Bentham’s ideas prevailed despite potential concerns, including the examples the author introduces. These concerns are presented as illustrations of how competing interests could challenge Bentham’s principle, not as historical objections.
Even if you assume social workers were common in Bentham’s time, B still wouldn’t be correct. For B to be true, the passage would need textual evidence that these specific concerns were raised at that time. However, the phrasing of the sentence in lines 49-50 makes it clear that the author is raising this hypothetical concern. Think about any time you write an essay: teachers and professors always emphasize that it’s important to clarify whether someone else is raising a point or if you are. The timeline mismatch only reinforces this point – B simply doesn’ fit.
Regarding intent vs. probable truth: the LSAT does, indeed, often present multiple answers that could seem plausible. But I wouldn’t say that they write answer choices that would be true if the correct one wasn’t there. Each wrong answer fails in some critical way – here, B fails because it misattributes the author’s concern as a historical objection when we have no good reason to believe it’s a historical objection.
Your points are definitely interesting though, so let me know if there’s something you still disagree with and I’d be happy to clarify!
Ah my apologies. Was revisiting after months and misread the answer choices and my confusion. Hopefully someone can delete my above comment, and this one replace it.
I am still curious as to why it does not imply a “historical objection.”
First, the line 49-50 I am assuming (as the digital ones dont have line numbers so theres no way for me to verify which you are referring to), is the modern example.
However, the modern phrase is specifically stated because it contains a very specific current rule – past cannot count, while, the concerns in “despite these concerns” is referring generally to the examples in the previous paragraph.
Second, the “despite these concerns”, seems to imply strongly that B can be true. – it lists ways people were concerned with, the pitfalls, and the phrasing of B still allows these objections to arise anytime after the proposal, even after his death.
I guess my challenge is, both B, and the snippet from the highlighted phrase until the “despite ..” sentence, both seem to state the timeline of “proposal -> concerns/objections -> application”. Therefore as long as the objection is in the middle B is technically true.
As for the modern objection, I still dont quite see how it is a modern objection. The “despite these concerns” really just simplifed says “even though there were concerns such as above listed, it was still
applied”. It seems to leave all examples except the very specific modern example of “past” open to fit this.
Another point was that social workers not existing at benthams time is an external knowledge that I had no idea of, and definitely not from reading the passage. So to me it was not obvious at all that social workers was a modern example, hence why I drilled into the above areas to find hints on “was this a concern in the past?”.
Hi, no worries! Comments go to the pending queue before they’re public, so I deleted your previous one and only approved this one :)
First, lines 49-50 are the sentence the states “But then, why not protect … or parents and children?”
Answer B claims that the mention of social workers and their clients cites an example of objections raised to Bentham’s proposed reform. This wording implies a historical objection because it refers to concerns raised while Bentham’s reforms were still considered proposed. The last paragraph tells us that his principle began prevailing soon after his death. Once it became accepted practice, it would no longer be accurate to classify it as a proposed reform. Therefore, for B to be correct, the objection must have been raised during his lifetime or immediately after his death, making it historical. This means B does not allow for modern objections, as those would no longer be objections to a proposed reform.
The sentence in lines 49-50 does not refer to a historical objections. Instead, it questions the consistency of Bentham’s principle: if sacramental confessions were excluded, why not other confidential conversations? This rhetorical question presents a conceptual issue, not necessarily an objection from his era. I’m going to try to break down two ways in which we can prove this:
First, the timeline discrepancy. It’s fair to note that the passage does not explicitly call social workers a modern example, and you may not know when social work became a formal profession. However, the LSAT expects reasonable inferences based on context. The first paragraph tells us that Bentham was active in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Given this timeline, it is unlikely that a prevalent objection at the time concerned social workers and their clients, as formalized public welfare systems were still in their infancy. Even without external knowledge, we can reasonably infer that social work as a structured profession developed later.
Alternatively, even without determining whether social work is a modern example, we can test B for textual support. If B were correct, the passage would need some evidence that people in Bentham’s time raised this concern. But the passage does not say this. As I mentioned in my previous comment, clear attribution is necessary in writing – especially in critiques (imagine trying to pass off someone else’s objection as your own). A well-written passage, like those on the LSAT, would credit historical objections if they existed, at least to some degree. Since no such attribution exists, and there’s no indication that people in Bentham’s era raised this concern, B lacks textual support.
To add on to this point regarding textual support, I would argue we find evidence of the contrary (i.e. that we have strong evidence indicating lines 49-50 are a part of the author’s own broader contentions with Bentham’s principle). The entirety of the third paragraph (which includes lines 49-50) read as the author’s critique of Bentham. The paragraph begins with “One difficulty with Bentham’s …”, signaling the author’s perspective. The explicitly modern example of bank robbery evidence is introduced with “To use a modern example”, while confidential conversations (incl. social workers) are introduced with “Further …”. This structure suggests that all of these examples belong to the same line of critique – the author’s, not a historical objection. If the social worker example were meant as a historical objection, the author would need to credit it as such, or else it would be misleading and arguably plagiarism.
In summary:
1. A timeline discrepancy exists, making it unlikely that social work was a historical objection.
2. Even without spotting the timeline issue, B lacks textual support, and paragraph 3 indicates these are the author’s own contentions, not historical objections.
Hopefully this helps clarify things further!