LSAT Reading : Comparing Passages
Study concepts, example questions & explanations for LSAT Reading
All LSAT Reading Resources
Example Questions
Example Question #1 : Comparative Reading
Passage adapted from G. C. Field's Moral Theory: an introduction (1921)
Moral Philosophy, as here conceived, is a criticism of our moral categories. We all know more or less what a moral judgment is, and we are all, of course, constantly making them. So-and-so is a good (or a bad) man, such-and-such an action is right (or wrong), are two types of the commonest forms of them. In such judgments, we use the ideas, or, to adopt our phraseology, the categories of good or bad, right or wrong. And in ordinary moral thinking we do not criticize these categories. Our interest then is centred in the question whether these or similar judgments are true or not. Is so-and-so a good man? Is this action right or wrong? We assume that there is something which we can call good or right, and we ask where it is present, what men or actions are good or right. But in Philosophy we shift our centre of interest. We are no longer concerned primarily with the question whether, for instance, any particular action is right or wrong; the question that we raise as moral philosophers is, “What does 'good' or 'right' mean?” That is, we are engaged in examining and criticizing our moral categories themselves, instead of, as in ordinary thinking, using and applying them in particular cases.
Passage adapted from James Seth, A Study of Ethical Principles (1898)
Ethics is the science of morality or conduct. It is accordingly often called practical, as opposed to theoretical, philosophy or metaphysics. The description is correct, if it is meant that ethics is the philosophy or theory of practice. It suggests, however, the question of the relations of moral theory and practice. Life or practice always precedes its theory or explanation; we are men before we are moralists. The moral life, though it implies an intellectual element from the first, is, in its beginnings, and for long, a matter of instinct, of tradition, of authority. The conceptions of good and evil, virtue and vice, duty and desert, which guide the life, not merely of the child but of the mass of mankind, are largely accepted, like intellectual notions, in blind and unquestioning faith. But moral, like intellectual, manhood implies emancipation from such a merely instinctive life; moral maturity brings with it reflection upon the meaning of life. The good man, like the wise man, puts away childish things; as a rational being, he must seek to reduce his life, like his world, to system. The contradictions and rivalries of ethical codes, the varying canons of moral criticism, the apparent chaos of moral practice, force upon him the need of a moral theory. This demand for a rationale of morality, for principles which shall give his life coherence, marks the transition from the practical to the theoretical standpoint, from life itself to its theoretic understanding.
The passage suggests that the authors of both passages would likely agree on which of the following points?
Moral philosophy represents a sort of maturity on the part of the ethicist, a desire to move beyond "childish" forms of conventional morality.
Most actions are guided by a conventional sort of pre-philosophical morality.
Ethics is primarily practical in its aim—that it, it seeks to guide the practicioner in their actions.
By following pre-philosophical forms of morality, people have only caused conflicts that could have been avoided.
Pre-philosophical forms of conventional morality are misguided and wrong.
Most actions are guided by a conventional sort of pre-philosophical morality.
Neither author claims that pre-philosophical or conventional forms of morality are necessarily false; indeed, both agree that most people follow a sort of conventional morality, and that this guides their action. Moral philosophy, however, has a different purpose than simply guiding everyday actions to both authors, though the two differ as to exactly what its purpose is.
Example Question #2 : Comparative Reading
Passage adapted from G. C. Field's Moral Theory: an introduction (1921)
Moral Philosophy, as here conceived, is a criticism of our moral categories. We all know more or less what a moral judgment is, and we are all, of course, constantly making them. So-and-so is a good (or a bad) man, such-and-such an action is right (or wrong), are two types of the commonest forms of them. In such judgments, we use the ideas, or, to adopt our phraseology, the categories of good or bad, right or wrong. And in ordinary moral thinking we do not criticize these categories. Our interest then is centred in the question whether these or similar judgments are true or not. Is so-and-so a good man? Is this action right or wrong? We assume that there is something which we can call good or right, and we ask where it is present, what men or actions are good or right. But in Philosophy we shift our centre of interest. We are no longer concerned primarily with the question whether, for instance, any particular action is right or wrong; the question that we raise as moral philosophers is, “What does 'good' or 'right' mean?” That is, we are engaged in examining and criticizing our moral categories themselves, instead of, as in ordinary thinking, using and applying them in particular cases.
Passage adapted from James Seth, A Study of Ethical Principles (1898)
Ethics is the science of morality or conduct. It is accordingly often called practical, as opposed to theoretical, philosophy or metaphysics. The description is correct, if it is meant that ethics is the philosophy or theory of practice. It suggests, however, the question of the relations of moral theory and practice. Life or practice always precedes its theory or explanation; we are men before we are moralists. The moral life, though it implies an intellectual element from the first, is, in its beginnings, and for long, a matter of instinct, of tradition, of authority. The conceptions of good and evil, virtue and vice, duty and desert, which guide the life, not merely of the child but of the mass of mankind, are largely accepted, like intellectual notions, in blind and unquestioning faith. But moral, like intellectual, manhood implies emancipation from such a merely instinctive life; moral maturity brings with it reflection upon the meaning of life. The good man, like the wise man, puts away childish things; as a rational being, he must seek to reduce his life, like his world, to system. The contradictions and rivalries of ethical codes, the varying canons of moral criticism, the apparent chaos of moral practice, force upon him the need of a moral theory. This demand for a rationale of morality, for principles which shall give his life coherence, marks the transition from the practical to the theoretical standpoint, from life itself to its theoretic understanding.
Both passages are primarily concerned with answering which of the following questions?
What is the purpose of moral philosophy?
Is the study of ethics necessary in order to act morally?
What is the relationship between theroretical philosophy and action?
What distinguishes ethics from other branches of philosophy?
What are the defects in everyday conventional moral thinking?
What is the purpose of moral philosophy?
While both passages do mention some of the problems of conventional forms of morality, addressing these problems is not the primary purpose of both passages; rather, introducing the purpose and scope of philosophical ethics is. While the other noncredited responses are parts of this explanation in one passage or the other, they cannot be properly called the primary purpose of both.
Example Question #3 : Comparative Reading
Passage adapted from G. C. Field's Moral Theory: an introduction (1921)
Moral Philosophy, as here conceived, is a criticism of our moral categories. We all know more or less what a moral judgment is, and we are all, of course, constantly making them. So-and-so is a good (or a bad) man, such-and-such an action is right (or wrong), are two types of the commonest forms of them. In such judgments, we use the ideas, or, to adopt our phraseology, the categories of good or bad, right or wrong. And in ordinary moral thinking we do not criticize these categories. Our interest then is centred in the question whether these or similar judgments are true or not. Is so-and-so a good man? Is this action right or wrong? We assume that there is something which we can call good or right, and we ask where it is present, what men or actions are good or right. But in Philosophy we shift our centre of interest. We are no longer concerned primarily with the question whether, for instance, any particular action is right or wrong; the question that we raise as moral philosophers is, “What does 'good' or 'right' mean?” That is, we are engaged in examining and criticizing our moral categories themselves, instead of, as in ordinary thinking, using and applying them in particular cases.
Passage adapted from James Seth, A Study of Ethical Principles (1898)
Ethics is the science of morality or conduct. It is accordingly often called practical, as opposed to theoretical, philosophy or metaphysics. The description is correct, if it is meant that ethics is the philosophy or theory of practice. It suggests, however, the question of the relations of moral theory and practice. Life or practice always precedes its theory or explanation; we are men before we are moralists. The moral life, though it implies an intellectual element from the first, is, in its beginnings, and for long, a matter of instinct, of tradition, of authority. The conceptions of good and evil, virtue and vice, duty and desert, which guide the life, not merely of the child but of the mass of mankind, are largely accepted, like intellectual notions, in blind and unquestioning faith. But moral, like intellectual, manhood implies emancipation from such a merely instinctive life; moral maturity brings with it reflection upon the meaning of life. The good man, like the wise man, puts away childish things; as a rational being, he must seek to reduce his life, like his world, to system. The contradictions and rivalries of ethical codes, the varying canons of moral criticism, the apparent chaos of moral practice, force upon him the need of a moral theory. This demand for a rationale of morality, for principles which shall give his life coherence, marks the transition from the practical to the theoretical standpoint, from life itself to its theoretic understanding.
Which of the following best describes the key difference between the two passages?
Passage 1 describes moral philosophy as chiefly speculative; passage 2, as primarily practical.
Passage 1 approaches its subject largely through logic and linguistics; passage 2, through metaphysics and the nature of things.
The first passage focuses on trying to create an ethical system; the second, on particular cases
Passage 1 views morality as a practical exercise in general practice; passage 2 views it as practical as a philosophical discipline.
Passage 1 describes moral philosophy as a chiefly speculative exercise; passage 2, as both practical and speculative.
Passage 1 describes moral philosophy as a chiefly speculative exercise; passage 2, as both practical and speculative.
For the first author, the purpose of moral philosophy is one of intellectual critique ("we are engaged in examining and criticizing our moral categories themselves, instead of, as in ordinary thinking, using and applying them in particular cases"); the second, while emphasizing the theoretic ("this demand for a rationale of morality, for principles which shall give his life coherence, marks the transition from the practical to the theoretical standpoint, from life itself to its theoretic understanding"), does so within the context of theory for action's sake. For the first author, the purpose of moral philosophy is primarily speculative; for the second, moral philosophy is speculation that guides action.
All LSAT Reading Resources
