Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Feb. 1999 Sec1.LR Q.#17  (Read 1468 times)

sg7007

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 289
    • MSN Messenger - sg7007@gmail.com
    • View Profile
    • Email
Feb. 1999 Sec1.LR Q.#17
« on: May 21, 2007, 07:51:27 PM »
Hey, guys
I hope somebody can help me with Q.17 from Sec.1 of Feb.1999

The passage says, "The difference between manners and morals is that the former are necessarily social in nature whereas the latter are not necessarily social in nature."

does this statement involve a conditional reasoning?
I diagramed the first as,
manner -> ~social

but, I can't figure out how to diagram the second relations. Is it possible to diagram the second one? if so, then how?

Thanks

Amy Winehouse

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 451
  • Rehab is for quitters.
    • View Profile
Re: Feb. 1999 Sec1.LR Q.#17
« Reply #1 on: May 21, 2007, 09:43:35 PM »
I figure these out using a Venn diagram.  I'd draw three interlocking circles and name one "manners," one "morals," and one "social in nature."

I'd shade out every part of the manners circle that does not overlap with the social in nature circle, as manners are necessarily social in nature.  I would not cross out any part of the morals circle, as they are not necessarily social in nature, indicating that they may or may not always be social in nature. 

What this means is that the only place that manners overlaps with morals is when both of them also overlap with social in nature. 

This type of diagram helped me the most, particularly with the questions meant to trick, such as, "The information above suggests that all manners that are social in nature are also morals."  That seems reasonable, but if you look at the Venn diagram, you'll see that there is a section of the manners bubble that overlaps with the social in nature circle but not the morals circle.

HTH.
Columbia Law School 2010

Pop Up Video

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 7275
    • View Profile
Re: Feb. 1999 Sec1.LR Q.#17
« Reply #2 on: May 21, 2007, 11:17:02 PM »
I second the Venn diagrams. They've saved me a couple times.

mr

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
  • "You're going to cure death? MUAHAHAHA...doubt it"
    • View Profile
Re: Feb. 1999 Sec1.LR Q.#17
« Reply #3 on: May 22, 2007, 12:22:29 AM »
The passage says, "The difference between manners and morals is that the former are necessarily social in nature whereas the latter are not necessarily social in nature."

If you were going to diagram this it's as follows:

Manners ----> Social in nature
~(Morals  ----> Social in nature)

The second one reads, it is not the case that Morals are necessarily social in nature.

I find this most productive and less confusing.

Some may need a reason that this is the best way to go...

The contrapositive is so much more easily accessible.

~SN--->~Manner
~(~SN--->~Morals)

The second one reads, it is not the case that a something not social in nature have no morals.

EarlCat

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2533
  • i'm in ur LSAT blowin' ur curve
    • AOL Instant Messenger - EarlCat78
    • View Profile
    • EarlDoesLSAT.com
Re: Feb. 1999 Sec1.LR Q.#17
« Reply #4 on: May 26, 2007, 05:38:59 PM »
Hey, guys
I hope somebody can help me with Q.17 from Sec.1 of Feb.1999

The passage says, "The difference between manners and morals is that the former are necessarily social in nature whereas the latter are not necessarily social in nature."

does this statement involve a conditional reasoning?
I diagramed the first as,
manner -> ~social

but, I can't figure out how to diagram the second relations. Is it possible to diagram the second one? if so, then how?

Thanks

A diagram isn't really needed here.  If you wanted to use a conditional, it's Manner --> Social, meaning social is necessary to be a manner.  rmkrause used an interesting conditional for morals, but I'd keep it simpler and say something like Moral --> ??? (which I probably wouldn't even write).

The only important information is that Social is necessary to be a Manner, but it's not sufficient (while Manners have to be Social, Socials don't have to be Manners), and Morals can be, well, whatever.

dyevochka's example statement, "The information above suggests that all manners that are social in nature are also morals," gets shot down because we can't say Social --> Moral or Manner --> Moral.  In fact, we know nothing concrete about Morals at all.

mr

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
  • "You're going to cure death? MUAHAHAHA...doubt it"
    • View Profile
Re: Feb. 1999 Sec1.LR Q.#17
« Reply #5 on: May 26, 2007, 10:41:29 PM »
Earlcat,

This problem supplies information about the relationship between morals and whether it is social in nature. The fact that it isn't conditional does not lessen its importance. While it may be up for discussion how to represent this information, it is not wise to forgo this part all together. (by not writing anything at all)

Take it or leave it: Any relationships that are designated, whether they be a negative or positive or otherwise (as here), you should have a way set out beforehand how to deal with each scenario.

rekopter

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 296
    • View Profile
Re: Feb. 1999 Sec1.LR Q.#17
« Reply #6 on: May 27, 2007, 01:08:49 AM »
SG,

I took this test today and this question really got to me. I spent about 5 minutes on it before guessing E. Doh.