PrepTest 130

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Methods of Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Implied opposing point: Only humans can obey moral rules, so only humans have rights.
Facts: Wolves, foxes, and domesticated dogs don't tolerate attacks after submission.
Conclusion: The opposing point is wrong.

Strategy Overview:
This answer uses the magic word—"counterexample"—so we should dig in. The animals in question are used to refute a premise of the counterpoint—mainly, that only humans obey moral rules. Since this answer highlights the means by which the Philosopher rebuts the implied counterpoint, this is the correct answer.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument, interestingly, rebuts an opposing point that it doesn't establish until the conclusion. There, it concludes that "it would be erroneous" to reach a conclusion that only humans have rights because they're the only animal that obeys moral rules. It does so by bringing up a few examples of animals that the Philosopher believes do seem to obey moral rules—in other words, it brings up a few counterexamples to the premise. The correct answer should reflect this common method of reasoning.

Answer Explanation:
This answer uses the magic word—"counterexample"—so we should dig in. The animals in question are used to refute a premise of the counterpoint—mainly, that only humans obey moral rules. Since this answer highlights the means by which the Philosopher rebuts the implied counterpoint, this is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Just as there are common flaws on the LSAT, there are also common Methods of Reasoning. Here, the Philosopher uses counterexamples to undermine a point. However, it's important to note not just that an argument uses counterexamples, but what those are counterexamples to. Here, the author undermines a premise using counterexamples. In another argument, the author just as easily could have undermined the principle underlying the argument using counterexamples, thus making (C) the correct answer.

Incorrect. While the argument may argue that some non-human animals are capable of obeying moral rules, that's a far cry from implying that all animals possess morality. In fact, the argument specifically calls out certain animals and "domesticated" dogs instead of all dogs, so, if anything, the list of animals that obey moral laws is implied to be at least somewhat limited.

Incorrect. This principle is underlying the implied opposing point, since it bases a lack of obeying moral rules on the part of animals as establishing that they don't have rights (i.e., not Obey moral rules → not Rights, or Rights → Obey moral rules, as this answer states). However, the author doesn't attack this principle directly or indirectly. In fact, the author brings up some animals that do obey moral rules. A counterexample that would undermine this principle would need to find animals that don't obey moral rules but do have rights—remember, a counterexample to a conditional statement shows an example where the sufficient condition is present but the necessary condition isn't.

Incorrect. Counterexamples don't highlight a logical contradiction, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. If anything, the Philosopher argues that the opposing point has too limited a view of morality, as animals display adherence to moral rules when the opposing point denies that they do.