Logical reasoning PrepTest 117 · Section 3 · Question 19

Incorrect. The argument concludes that apparently altruistic behavior is really motivated by self—interest, and thus there's no truly altruistic behavior. As such, the author is saying the opposite of this answer—that someone motivated by self—interest isn't being altruistic.

Incorrect. The argument does the opposite—infers that behavior that seems altruistic actually isn't.

Incorrect. The argument relies on this being true—that someone is motivated by a desire to feel good about themself and thus maintain positive self—esteem—so it doesn't fail to consider that.

Incorrect. This answer is the negation of the second half of the second sentence. However, the argument doesn't treat that statement as actually stating the negation, so an answer stating that it assumes it is incorrect.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Everyone wants to feel good about themself, so altruistic behavior can be seen as being motivated just by people wanting to feel good about themselves, and thus there's no truly altruistic behavior.

Answer Anticipation:
First, we need to discuss the argument structure, as it's not particularly easy to see what the conclusion is here. The first statement is an opinion, and a particularly strong one—there is no genuinely altruistic behavior. Adverbs (e.g., "genuinely") can be a good sign of an opinion as they tend to convey some type of judgment. As such we have a candidate for a conclusion here. The other statements can also be seen as opinions though so we need to pay attention to the relationships to see what the main point is. And looking at that we can see that the later lines support the initial sentence—the motives behind seemingly altruistic behavior is being used to show that there is no genuinely altruistic behavior.

And that brings us to a common element involved in flawed logic—motive. When motive shows up on the LSAT it's likely related to the correct answer. Here the premise notes that apparently altruistic behavior could just be motivated by a desire to view oneself positively.

But note the degree shift there—the behavior "can be" understood as being selfishly motivated and so there "is no" truly altruistic behavior. Just because something could be motivated by something doesn't mean it's the true motive. There could be someone who acts with an altruistic motive who also receives a benefit from performing that act. Let's find an answer highlighting this degree shift.

Answer Explanation:
This answer brings up the degree shift the argument makes. It establishes that apparently altruistic behavior can be seen as motivated by self—interest but then it concludes that it is motivated by self—interest (i.e. it isn't altruistic).

Key Takeaway:
Degree shifts are sometimes very hard to spot—especially when it comes from a single "can/could." In the real world we throw that word into sentences and don't think anything of it and much of the time we use it to convey certainty. Just think about the last time someone asked you to grab lunch with them and you replied "Yeah I can do that!" despite meaning that you will do that. It's important to train yourself to notice words such as this and to note when a conclusion is certain/strong so that you can then look to see if the premises match that strength.

Also note here that we started our analysis by looking at motive which generally doesn't involve a degree shift. So in short we stumbled on the right flaw by looking at an element that's generally related to a different flaw. However that isn't really properly characterized as us "stumbling on" it as the LSAT will connect the important ideas together. Always look at these elements that are commonly associated with flaws as thinking about them will frequently directly or indirectly lead you in the right direction.