Q9 - Historian: Anyone who thinks that

[gplaya123]

Can someome go over it? Thxx

[ohthatpatrick]

This question actually demonstrates a shortcut we can sometimes take on Principle Support and Sufficient Assumption: know what you're trying to prove!

What's our Conclusion? (indicated by "So")
Some of the ordinary people of Q were in fact murderers

To prove this idea, I essentially need two ingredients:
1. Tell me something about the people of Q
2. Give me a rule that says "if you did what the people of Q did, then you are a murderer"

Nothing in any of the evidence ever mentions "murder". When a new term/idea appears in the conclusion of Principle Support and Sufficient Assumption, you KNOW that the correct answer needs to have that new term/idea.

So at a glance, (B), (D), and (E) are worthless to us, because none of them even mention murder.

What did the premises tell us about the ordinary people of Q?
they comprised a regime enthusiastically seeking paradise. The regime executed many people in pursuit of that goal, although they later realized that their paradise was unrealizable.

Great. I need an answer that takes something from that story and gets me all the way to "you're a murderer".

(A) seems close. They WERE pursuing paradise. This would allow us to conclude that "the ordinary people of Q did not have justification to murder based solely on pursuing paradise." But it doesn't actually allow us to prove that they were murderers.

(C) works. They DID execute people in pursuit of what was later found to be an unattainable goal of paradise. This rule says, "If you did THAT, then that's murder." So this allows us to prove that "some of the people of Q were murderers".

Let me know if any of that doesn't make sense.

[WaltGrace1983]

I think the important point to note on (A) is that we are not concerned with "justifying" murder. We are just concerned with the identification of someone as a murderer. That is why I eliminated (A).

I do have a question though. So whenever the we see a stem like this (principles....most support) do we approach it like a sufficient assumption question, similarly to how we would approach the "principle...justify" stems?

[tommywallach]

Hey Walt,

There are two types of principle questions. One of them is an assumption-based question (which of the following principles best supports the argument), the other is more like an inference question (Which of the following principles best matches the above).

-t

[roflcoptersoisoi]

This question actually demonstrates a shortcut we can sometimes take on Principle Support and Sufficient Assumption: know what you're trying to prove!

What's our Conclusion? (indicated by "So")
Some of the ordinary people of Q were in fact murderers

To prove this idea, I essentially need two ingredients:
1. Tell me something about the people of Q
2. Give me a rule that says "if you did what the people of Q did, then you are a murderer"

Nothing in any of the evidence ever mentions "murder". When a new term/idea appears in the conclusion of Principle Support and Sufficient Assumption, you KNOW that the correct answer needs to have that new term/idea.

So at a glance, (B), (D), and (E) are worthless to us, because none of them even mention murder.

What did the premises tell us about the ordinary people of Q?
they comprised a regime enthusiastically seeking paradise. The regime executed many people in pursuit of that goal, although they later realized that their paradise was unrealizable.

Great. I need an answer that takes something from that story and gets me all the way to "you're a murderer".

(A) seems close. They WERE pursuing paradise. This would allow us to conclude that "the ordinary people of Q did not have justification to murder based solely on pursuing paradise." But it doesn't actually allow us to prove that they were murderers.

(C) works. They DID execute people in pursuit of what was later found to be an unattainable goal of paradise. This rule says, "If you did THAT, then that's murder." So this allows us to prove that "some of the people of Q were murderers".

Let me know if any of that doesn't make sense.

I get what you're saying, but couldn't you say that they were murderers by virtue of committing murders even if they were not justified ?

[ohthatpatrick]

"I get what you're saying, but couldn't you say that they were murderers by virtue of committing murders even if they were not justified ?"

Sure! That's why (A) is doing no meaningful work. We don't care about whether they were justified murderers or unjustified murderers.

We just care about "were they murderers"?

If you think we ALREADY know they're murderers from the fact that they "executed people in pursuit of their goal", then the question would be over before we even saw answer choices.

All this question is asking is "which answer choice gets us closest to proving that some people of Q were murderers."

If we had already established that some people of Q were murderers, there would be no question to ask. And (A) gets us no closer to proving that some people of Q were murderers.

I think you're just accepting the notion that "if you executed someone, then you murdered someone", but that connection was never spelled out and (C) is providing that connection for us.

Is "executing" really the same as "murdering"?

When someone is assigned the death penalty in the US legal system, there IS an executioner. Whoever is there to administer the lethal injection is executing the death row prisoner. Do you believe that the person administering the lethal injection is a "murderer"?

There is plenty of debate about whether capital punishment is right / wrong or whether it should / shouldn't be allowed despite its morality. But most people don't think that person responsible for executing the prisoners should be called (and prosecuted as) a "murderer".

So it's not like LSAT is asking us to link two interchangeable ideas. Executing people and murdering them DO have different meanings / contexts, and to make a move from executing to murdering is a bit of a leap.

[ChrisB741]

I understood the question and the answer choice for the question, but how do i rule out the possibility that the first sentence is not the main conclusion of the argument? It seems as though it is supported by the therefore test.

While doing this question, i thought that the sentence following the So was the subsidiary conclusion supporting the first sentence.

My logic was...

At least some of the ordinary people of Q were in fact murderers (therefore) -> Anyone who thinks that the terrors of ancient regime of Q were exclusively the work of fanatics is overlooking a basic truth.

This seemed to make more sense to me rather than the converse of this statement ^.