Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Confused LSATer Seeking Brain Ninjas  (Read 523 times)

AkhilAmar

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 197
  • Need lots of good karma!!!!!!!!
    • View Profile
Confused LSATer Seeking Brain Ninjas
« on: August 17, 2007, 07:12:52 PM »

So, I took PT 34 (June '01) yesterday and got a disappointing 162. While reviewing the entire test, I ran across a couple args that I still can't grasp. I was hoping a few of you can help me out.


Can someone summarize this arg stimulus:

6. The notion that one might be justified in behaving irrationally in the service of a sufficiently worthy end is incoherent. For if such an action is justified, then one would be behaving rationally, not irrationally.



Can someone show me the logical diagram for this stimulus:

23. To be horrific, a monster must be threatening. Whether or not it presents psychological, moral, or social dangers, or triggers enduring infantile fears, if a monster is physically dangerous then it is threatening. In fact, even a physically benign monster is horrific if it inspires revulsion.


Thanks in advance.
UGPA: 3.8

LSAT: Dec. '07

Dream school: Michigan!

EarlCat

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2533
  • i'm in ur LSAT blowin' ur curve
    • AOL Instant Messenger - EarlCat78
    • View Profile
    • EarlDoesLSAT.com
Re: Confused LSATer Seeking Brain Ninjas
« Reply #1 on: August 17, 2007, 07:19:59 PM »
You can't be justified in behaving irrationally because if an action is justified, it's rational.

PNym

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 781
    • View Profile
Re: Confused LSATer Seeking Brain Ninjas
« Reply #2 on: August 17, 2007, 10:52:48 PM »

So, I took PT 34 (June '01) yesterday and got a disappointing 162. While reviewing the entire test, I ran across a couple args that I still can't grasp. I was hoping a few of you can help me out.


Can someone summarize this arg stimulus:

6. The notion that one might be justified in behaving irrationally in the service of a sufficiently worthy end is incoherent. For if such an action is justified, then one would be behaving rationally, not irrationally.

You're "incoherent" if you think behaving "irrationally in the service of a sufficiently worthy end" is "justified." "Justified actions in the service of a sufficiently worthly end" are always "rational."

Basically, if you think doing stupid *&^% for a good cause is justified, you're nuts. That's because justified actions for a good cause can only be not-stupid-*&^%.

Can someone show me the logical diagram for this stimulus:

23. To be horrific, a monster must be threatening. Whether or not it presents psychological, moral, or social dangers, or triggers enduring infantile fears, if a monster is physically dangerous then it is threatening. In fact, even a physically benign monster is horrific if it inspires revulsion.


Thanks in advance.

Revulsive monster -> Horrific monster -> Threatening monster <- Physically dangerous monster