October 1997 LSAT Section 2 Question 13

Committee member: We should not vote to put at the top of the military's chain of command an individual whose hist...

Emily-Odermatt on November 15, 2019

Where is the value judgement coming from?

I initially eliminated A because it made the value judgement that the top jobs were important. Where did that value judgement come from?

Replies

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

Annie on November 15, 2019

Hi @Emily-Odermatt,

This question is asking you to find the principle which explains the argument being made. The first step is to analyze the argument and see if you can distill a principle on your own.

Here, the Committee member tells us that he doesn't think we should put anyone in charge who has a history of drinking which would keep them from holding certain other jobs.

Then, turn to the answer choices and see if any of them help explain this rationale.

(A) is correct. This answer choice provides the principle that to lead an organization, you should not be barred from holding a subordinate position. I see that you eliminated this answer because of the word "important." While this is a value judgment, it is not the focus of the answer choice. The Committee member tells us that no one should lead the military who would be barred from other jobs in the military. This includes the important jobs. Therefore, this answer choice provides a guiding principle behind the argument.

(B) is incorrect. The argument just says that the person should not "be barred" from serving in lesser positions, not that they must have held those positions.

(C) is incorrect. This answer choice goes too far. The argument just says that the person can't "be barred" from holding the positions, not that they must be qualified to hold the position.

(D) is incorrect. This answer choice says that someone who drinks excessively should not be in the military chain of command. However, the argument only has to do with the top job in the military, not the whole chain of command.

(E) is incorrect. This answer is like C. The argument is that they should not be barred from holding the position, not that they must be qualified to hold the position.

Emily-Odermatt on November 15, 2019

So... I guess what my question is when so get to only use synonymous words, and when I get to make non-synonymous value judgements (top=important)?