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.