LSAT Kung Fu Forum / June 2007 Section 3 #18

June 2007 Section 3 #18

2 posts / 0 new
Last post
hornswaggle's picture
June 2007 Section 3 #18


I'm having trouble characterizing the flaw/assumption for this argument.

The argument states that it is "almost universally accepted" that you have an obligation to prevent harm to your family members.

From there, it argues:

1) "few" people would deny that it's ok to hide a son/daughter from the police if they're falsely accused (sub-conclusion), and that
2) therefore, it's ok to "sometimes" obstruct the police.

Basically, I thought that the argument gave insufficient evidence for both its conclusions. To be more precise, simply stating that a certain obligation is "almost universally accepted" does not mean 1 or 2 are true.

B) seems to address this by saying that other values could override the obligation to protect family.

Is this correct? Or is there a better way to characterize this problem?

majorgeneraldave's picture

Hey, there,

I've tackled this question in Answer Central!

(Note: you'll need to be logged-in first to see the videos)

You can find my response here, or click "My Account" then "Answer Central"  for a list of all Answer Central videos sorted by page number (from the VTP Manuals) or by test number.

Let me know if you need more help!

You must Log in or Sign Up to post comments