Eighteenth-century moralist: You should never make an effort to acquir

Question

Eighteenth-century moralist: You should never make an effort to acquire expensive new tastes, since they are a drain on your purse and in the course of acquiring them you may expose yourself to sensations that are obnoxious to you. Furthermore, the very effort that must be expended in their acquisition attests their superfluity.

The moralist’s reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the moralist

(A) draws a conclusion that simply restates a claim presented in support of that conclusion
(B) takes for granted that the acquisition of expensive tastes will lead to financial irresponsibility
(C) uses the inherently vague term “sensations” without providing a definition of that term
(D) mistakes a cause of acquisition of expensive tastes for an effect of acquisition of such tastes
(E) rejects trying to achieve a goal because of the cost of achieving it, without considering the benefits of achieving it

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT

The first time I read this argument, I thought it was circular. Circular reasoning is an argument that assumes its own conclusion, that is, an argument that presents a conclusion without any support other than itself. I’ve already provided a few examples of this, but here’s another one: “Bakersfield is the armpit of California, because Bakersfield sucks.” There’s no evidence or logic there at all, just a naked attack on Bakersfield. Which does, by the way, suck ass.

But that’s not what really happens here. The moralist presents three reasons why “expensive new tastes” should be avoided: 1) cost, 2) exposure to “obnoxious
sensations,” whatever that means, and 3) effort. After all that, I can’t really call the argument “circular.” There definitely  has  been evidence presented. Unfortunately, I can’t really predict what the flaw is before looking at the answer choices. We’re just going to have to wade in.

A) This would be the correct answer if the argument  were  circular. But, as we discussed above, this argument did present some evidence.

B) “Financial irresponsibility” isn’t mentioned in the argument, so this can’t be the flaw that the author has actually made.

C) This is almost never the correct answer on the LSAT. First, “sensations” isn’t an inherently vague term. Second, we don’t need to define every term used in our arguments. If we did have to do that, then every argument would have to be accompanied by an entire dictionary. This can’t be it.

D) This would be the correct answer if the argument had confused a cause for an effect. An example would be, “Laptop ownership leads to higher incomes,” when, in fact, higher incomes probably cause laptop ownership. This isn’t it.

E) The argument  does  do this. It focuses entirely on the negative aspects of acquiring new tastes, without mentioning whether there might be any positives. This would be like saying, “You shouldn’t ever go to the hospital because it’s expensive and painful,” while ignoring the fact that the hospital might save your life, thus justifying any expense and pain you might have to bear. This is it.

Our answer is E.

NeoNguyen1989 · Answer

There are a lot of big words in this argument such as superfluidity. However, in a big picture, the argument is biased in the sense that it focuses only on the negative consequences without considering the values. E is the correct answer

Posted from my mobile device

Posted from my mobile device

sivatx2 · Answer

Avoid Expensive new tastes:
-ve 1: drain purse
-ve 2: obnoxious sensation
-ve 3: Waste on unnecessary acquisition

To weaken moralist reasoning, then we need to find a reason why expensive new tastes are necessary. Is there any benefits for those spending?

(A) draws a conclusion that simply restates a claim presented in support of that conclusion 
 Argument does not restate the claim as conclusion (stop smoking because you should avoid smoking).
Claim not equals to conclusion. Also there is no reasoning provided to counter moralist. Eliminate.

(B) takes for granted that the acquisition of expensive tastes will lead to financial irresponsibility 
 Argument identifies financial risk not irresponsibility. Also, this is not counter-argument for the moralist reasoning. Eliminate.

(C) uses the inherently vague term “sensations” without providing a definition of that term 
 This does not weaken the argument, where we are looking for why expensive new tastes are necessary. Eliminate

(D) mistakes a cause of acquisition of expensive tastes for an effect of acquisition of such tastes 
 There is no cause and effect flaw/mistake in the argument. Eliminate

(E) rejects trying to achieve a goal because of the cost of achieving it, without considering the  benefits  of achieving it 
 This clearly states that there maybe some necessary expensive new tastes, which can benefit when we achieve it. For example, as a sprint runner, you may have to train hard and spend lot of money in training programs, but the benefit is that you have the potential to be the fastest human or get an Olympics medal. There should also be reasoning if benefits outweighs the risks. 
Hence E is the answer choice.

GmatErrorLog1 · Answer

The argument has two premises and one conclusion:

Premise 1: You should never make an effort to acquire expensive new tastes, since they are a drain on your purse
Premise 2: In the course of acquiring expensive new tastes, you may expose yourself to sensations that are obnoxious to you

Conclusion: The very effort that must be expended in their acquisition attests their superfluity

Let’s look at each answer choice and see if it matches the flaw in the argument:

(A) draws a conclusion that simply restates a claim presented in support of that conclusion
This answer choice is incorrect, because the conclusion does not restate any of the premises. The conclusion makes a new claim about the superfluity of expensive tastes, which is not mentioned in the premises.

(B) takes for granted that the acquisition of expensive tastes will lead to financial irresponsibility
This answer choice is incorrect, because the argument does not assume that acquiring expensive tastes will lead to financial irresponsibility. The argument only claims that expensive tastes are a drain on your purse, which is a different concept from financial irresponsibility.

(C) uses the inherently vague term “sensations” without providing a definition of that term
This answer choice is incorrect, because the vagueness of the term “sensations” is not relevant to the flaw in the argument. The argument does not depend on the definition of “sensations”, but on the claim that they are obnoxious to you. Even if the term “sensations” was defined more clearly, it would not affect the validity of the argument.

(D) mistakes a cause of acquisition of expensive tastes for an effect of acquisition of such tastes
This answer choice is incorrect, because the argument does not confuse a cause and an effect. The argument does not claim that the effort to acquire expensive tastes is caused by or causes anything else. It only claims that the effort indicates their superfluity.

(E) rejects trying to achieve a goal because of the cost of achieving it, without considering the benefits of achieving it
This answer choice is correct, because it identifies the flaw in the argument. The argument rejects acquiring expensive tastes based on their cost and potential negative consequences, but it does not consider any possible benefits or reasons for acquiring them. The argument assumes that expensive tastes have no value or purpose, which is a questionable assumption that weakens the argument. Therefore, the correct answer is (E).

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Eighteenth-century moralist: You should never make an effort to acquir

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Eighteenth-century moralist: You should never make an effort to acquir

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards