Political scientist:  All governments worthy of respect allow their citizens to dissent from governmental policies. N...

Ravi February 27, 2020

@Dalaal,

Let's take a look at (E).

your premise diagrams look good, but I disagree with your way of
diagramming the conclusion. The conclusion is not a conditional
statement; rather, it's a 'prescriptive' statement that's saying that
something 'should' be done.

The problem with this argument is that there is an exclusivity flaw in
it. Second-person narratives are not mentioned in the argument, and
it's possible that second-person narratives are actually the best for
revealing the motives of all of the characters. Because (E) provides
us with a different flaw than the one in the stimulus of the argument,
so it's out.

In diagramming the stimulus of the argument, we have

Premise 1: Worthy of respect - >Allow dissent
Premise 2: Worthy of respect - >Protect minorities

Conclusion: Protect Minorities - >Allow dissent


A - >B

A - >C

Conclusion: C - >B

The flaw in the stimulus is that the author is using the converse of
the second premise to draw his flawed conclusion. The answer we pick
should show a similar flaw.

(B) says, "All jazz musicians are capable of improvising and no jazz
musician is incapable of reading music. Therefore all musicians who
can read music can improvise."

We can diagram (B) as

Premise 1: Jazz musician - >capable of improvising

Premise 2: Jazz musician - >read music

Conclusion: Read music - >capable of improvising

A - >B

A - >C

Conclusion: C - >B

(B) gives us the exact same type of flaw we saw in the stimulus, so
it's the correct answer choice.

Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any other questions!

Dalaal February 28, 2020

What exactly are 'prescriptive' statements? I mean how do they affect the diagram and the conclusion?

Also will the exclusivity flaw be discussed later one in the course?

shunhe May 2, 2020

Hi @Dalaal,

Thanks for the question! Prescriptive statements are just statements that have a normative component to them; in other words, they (often) take the form of “should.” For example, I should get a pay raise. They’re not descriptions of the world as it is, but rather statements that suggest courses of actions or ways things should actually be. They’re contrasted with descriptive statements, which are just statements of how things are, and often have “to be” verbs in them. For example, while “I should get a pay raise” is a prescriptive statement, “My salary is $60k a year” is a descriptive statement.

Sometimes, this will be important on the LSAT, because the author might speak prescriptively when they should speak descriptively, or vice versa.

Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.