Main content
Course: LSAT > Unit 1
Lesson 8: Logical Reasoning – Worked examples- Identify the conclusion | Worked example
- Identify an entailment | Worked example
- Strongly supported inferences | Worked example
- Working with disputes | Worked example
- Identify the technique | Worked example
- Identify the role | Worked example
- Identify the principle | Worked example
- Match the structure | Worked example
- Match principles | Worked example
- Identify a flaw | Worked example
- Match flaws | Worked example
- Necessary assumptions | Worked example
- Sufficient assumptions | Worked example
- Strengthen | Worked example
- Weaken | Worked example
- Helpful to know | Worked example
- Explain | Worked example
- Resolve a conflict | Worked example
© 2024 Khan AcademyTerms of usePrivacy PolicyCookie Notice
Working with disputes | Worked example
Watch a demonstration of one way to solve a question that asks you to infer the dispute presented in the stimulus. Created by Sal Khan.
Want to join the conversation?
- i am having an issue with the lessons. In some of the sections you are teaching us a certain way to answer the questions but when doing the worked examples you are not using the methods teached to answer the questions. Overall what i am noticing is that each section has at least two teachers and they both teach a different method so it loses consistency.(8 votes)
- Yes, I agree with this. I am a little disappointed because I was expecting we were going to put in practice the other method shown previously. It should be consistent.(3 votes)
Video transcript
- Laurel says: Modern moral
theories must be jettisoned, or at least greatly reworked
because they fail to provide guidance in extreme cases,
which are precisely the times when people most need guidance. Miriam says: A moral
theory, like an overcoat, can be quite useful
even if it is not useful in every possible situation. Being useful in a wide variety
of common circumstances is all we need from a moral theory. This is interesting. Let's think about where they
agree and where they disagree. So where they agree: they both say that these moral theories don't
cover every circumstance. So moral theories don't cover every case. Don't cover every case. Now what are they disagreeing about? Laurel is saying that's not good enough. You need the moral theories
in the extreme cases and if they're not covering that, well we got to throw these away. Come up with new ones, or
at least to rework them. But Miriam is saying no, no, no. As long as they cover
a broad class of cases, even if they are not
covering the extreme cases, they are still useful. It's being useful in a wide
variety of common circumstances is all we need from a moral theory. So not only is Miriam
saying that it's useful but she's saying that it's all
we need from a moral theory. So let's see what they're
asking us about this. Laurel's and Miriam's statements
provide the most support for the claim that they
disagree about whether: A. It is preferable to develop
a moral theory that provides solutions to all the moral
dilemmas that could arise. That does look like what
they're disagreeing about 'cause Miriam is saying hey, you just
need the common circumstances while Laurel says hey, we need to find guidance in the extreme cases. So this choice looks interesting
but before we pick it let's see if we can rule
out the other choices. People abandon earlier moral theories when they encounter dilemmas that those theories did not adequately address. So they're not making any statements. Neither of them are making any statements about why people abandon
earlier moral theories. Laurel is saying that we
have to abandon current ones because they're not
covering the extreme cases. Miriam says no, no, no. Moral theory is okay if it covers the common ones,
the common circumstances. That's actually all you need. But they're not debating why people have abandoned earlier moral theories. So I will definitely rule this one out. Rule that one out. Alright. C. A Moral theory's adequacy depends on its ability to provide
guidance in extreme cases. Now this looks even better 'cause this is getting really to the heart
of it because Laurel says look, if you can't provide
guidance in extreme cases, throw out that thing. Jettison it. It's not adequate. While Miriam says, not only is it adequate,
that's all you need. So I actually like choice
C better than choice A. A was it is preferable
to develop a moral theory that provides solutions
to all the moral dilemmas that could arise. So their debate here, their
statements, it's really talking about whether a moral
theory is adequate or not. It's not talking developing moral theories or how you'd want to
go about developing it. So even though I kind of
liked A in the beginning, I'm going to rule that out
because C is looking very strong. They're debating about what
makes a moral theory adequate in terms of whether it
covers extreme cases or not. Choice D: Just as people
need different overcoats in different climates, so too do they need different moral theories
on different occasions. No, neither of them are talking about needing different moral theories
in different circumstances. So I would rule that one out. C is looking very strong. Let's see what E tells us. A moral theory developed in
the light of extreme cases, is unlikely to provide adequate guidance in more usual cases. No, neither of them are
making that argument. Neither of them is saying on
either side of the argument that hey, if you focus on the extreme, that you're not going to
be able to do the common or vice versa. So rule that one out. And we should feel pretty
good about picking choice C.