LSAT Explanation PT 31, S3, Q16: Ethicist: Some would ban cloning on

LSAT Question Stem

The assertion that it is not illegal to use one person as a vehicle for another's ambitions is used in the ethicist's argument in which one of the following ways? 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is an Argument Part question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is D. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

In the passage, the ethicist is discussing the topic of cloning and the arguments against it. The argument's structure can be broken down as follows:

Premise 1: Some people argue that cloning should be banned because clones would be subpeople, existing to indulge the vanity of their "originals."

Premise 2: It is not illegal to use one person as a vehicle for another's ambitions, as seen in parents pushing their children to achieve in academics or athletics.

Implied Conclusion: Vanity as a motivation for cloning is not enough of a reason to ban cloning.

The question type is Argument Part, asking us to identify how the assertion that it is not illegal to use one person as a vehicle for another's ambitions is used in the ethicist's argument.

Now, let's analyze each answer choice:

a) This answer choice is incorrect because it suggests that the ethicist is arguing about society's value of individuality, which is not the main focus of the argument. The argument is focused on whether vanity is a sufficient reason to ban cloning.

b) This answer choice is also incorrect because the argument is not about whether forcing children to pursue academic success is objectionable or not. The example of parents pushing their children is used to draw an analogy, not to make a judgment on the ethics of that behavior.

c) This answer choice is incorrect because it does not accurately represent the relationship between the ethicist's assertion and the argument. The assertion that it is not illegal to use one person as a vehicle for another's ambitions is not implied by the ethicist's conviction that clones are not subpeople. Instead, it is used as support for the implied conclusion.

d) This is the correct answer choice. The assertion that it is not illegal to use one person as a vehicle for another's ambitions supports the ethicist's view that vanity's being the motivation for cloning is not enough of a reason to ban cloning. The ethicist uses the example of parents pushing their children to draw an analogy between that behavior and cloning, arguing that if we don't ban such behavior in the case of parents, we shouldn't ban cloning for the same reason.

e) This answer choice is incorrect because the ethicist does not argue that the legal position should be changed. Instead, the ethicist uses the legal position to support the implied conclusion that vanity as a motivation for cloning is not enough of a reason to ban cloning.

In summary, the correct answer choice is D, as the assertion that it is not illegal to use one person as a vehicle for another's ambitions supports the ethicist's view that vanity's being the motivation for cloning is not enough of a reason to ban cloning.