Logical reasoning PrepTest 124 · Section 3 · Question 12

Incorrect. This answer is about abandoning a project, not avoiding doing it in the first place. Additionally, while the spiritual benefit is listed as a benefit that can be dispelled, there's no indication that that is the primary reason people undertake the climb.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
The risk of climbing Everest is high, and the "spiritual discovery" one gets from it is overblown according to those who have done it, so climbers shouldn't climb Everest.

Answer Anticipation:
Strengthen (Principle) questions task us with justifying a judgment made in the conclusion based on the details in the premises.

Here, the judgment is that climbers shouldn't attempt to climb Everest, so that's the judgment that needs to be justified.

Why does the author believe that to be the case? For two reasons. First, the risk is very high. Second, the supposed benefit—a spiritual discovery—is not reported by those who actually make the climb.

The correct answer should connect either or both of these details to the judgment:
If the risk of a climb is very high and/or* the benefits of a climb are "false", then climbers shouldn't climb.

*Note that on the LSAT, or is inclusive, which means that it guarantees at least one of the options but leaves open the possibility of both. However, we wrote our anticipation out here as and/or to highlight that either word will be correct in the answer choices.

Answer Explanation:
This answer allows for a conclusion to be drawn that a climb shouldn't be undertaken ("should be avoided"). And the details line up with the premises—the climb is dangerous ("risk of death or serious injury"), and the spiritual benefits are reportedly not real. Since this answer justifies the judgment in the conclusion based on the details in the premises, it's the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Really focus on the conclusions of Strengthen (Principle) questions. The correct answer will almost always directly address that conclusion, so answers that don't are almost always wrong.

Incorrect. The argument isn't about legal prohibitions, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. The argument isn't about having a profound spiritual experience, so there being other means of having one is out of scope.

Incorrect. The argument concludes that climbers shouldn't climb Everest—this answer is about analyzing motives. The latter doesn't justify the former.