Q8 - Philosopher: It has been argued that

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Question Type:
Must be True

Stimulus Breakdown:
This argument compares differing moral codes with differing cuisines. It states that even though there are many different cuisines, they share certain universal tastes.

Answer Anticipation:
The correct answer should mirror the relationship across different cuisines in that they are based on universal tastes. An answer that suggests that different moral codes are based on universal moral principles would be ideal.

Correct answer:
(C)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) fails to provide the underlying connection between the different moral codes that arise in various contexts.

(B) is too strong. While the point of the argument is that differing moral codes have a similar basis, this goes to far. We cannot say that "most" moral codes resemble each other in many respects.

(C) is correct. This mirrors the relationship that different cuisines have certain underlying similarities.

(D) is out of scope. Different moral codes need not be understood in order for them to share a common basis.

(E) is out of scope. Changing (or adapting) moral attitudes is not a point of the argument.

Takeaway/Pattern: Reasoning Structure: Comparison

#officialexplanation

[cynthiaemesibe]

I had trouble with this question. I first chose B then went with A, however, both ended up being wrong. I need help understanding why C is the answer. Thanks!

[andrewgong01]

WAs the first sentence in this argument basically "unimportant". I got confused with the argument because "morality" never shows up again in the argument or the correct answer choice and then it also had the whole claim that the first sentence is flawed . In all, it just seemed confusing , especially when it is matched with the premise that there are certain shared moral attitudes across cultures.

I solved it correctly because I did not fully understand what it was trying to say in the first sentence but A,B,D sounded off for the LSAT and when I looked at "C" it made sense based of the cooking analogy where we need to find some other constant thing across society to match universal taste and then something to match different cuisine.

In other words, was there a role the first sentence played in the argument beyond providing moral code as a word to use to solve the question?