Logical reasoning PrepTest 155 · Section 1 · Question 16

Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Principle (Strengthen)

Stimulus Summary:
A park ranger feels it isn't fair to cite people for fishing in newly restricted areas. They probably don't know about the new restrictions — even many park rangers aren't aware of them yet. So until a real effort is made to publicize the new restrictions, only a warning should be issued.

Strategy Overview:

1. Argument or facts? Always an argument, so identify the conclusion and premises
2. Identify gap between premises and conclusion
3. Anticipate, and diagram, the principle that will strengthen the argument
   1. Should resemble: "Premise → Conclusion" or "NOT Conclusion → NOT Premise"

Answer Anticipation:
This is the Strengthen variety of a Principle question. To answer this question, we simply have to anticipate a rule that will connect the premise of the park ranger's argument to the conclusion the park ranger draws. Generally, that rule will be a conditional statement that says, more or less, "Premise → Conclusion."

To form that anticipation, we need to first identify the park ranger's premise and conclusion. The premise is that people don't know about the new regulations. There are two conclusions: the subsidiary conclusion that it would be "unfair" to cite people for violating the new regulation and the main conclusion that rangers should "do no more than issue a simple warning against fishing in the newly restricted areas.". So the correct answer could say, "If people are unaware of a new regulation, then it's unfair to cite them for violating that regulation." Or it might read, "If people are unaware of a new regulation, then you should do no more than issue a simple warning for violating that regulation." Easy-peasy.

Answer Choice Explanation:
This is a broader, stronger version of our anticipation, which might give some test-takers pause. However, it's perfectly acceptable for principles to be broader and stronger than necessary on Principle (Strengthen) questions — as long as the conditions capture the premise and conclusion of the argument. The sufficient condition, "violating laws of which they are unaware," captures the premise of the park ranger's argument, because the park ranger says that people are "unaware of the changes in regulations." And the necessary condition, "people should not be cited," captures the conclusion that rangers should "do no more than issue a simple warning against fishing in the newly restricted areas." If you're doing nothing beyond warning violators, then you're not citing them. So, adding this rule to the park ranger's argument would certainly strengthen the argument, making this the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
"How do I get faster at answering questions?" is one of the most common questions students have. The answer to that question depends far more on technique than timing strategies, and this question is a valuable illustration of that fact.

A "fast" LSATer does not read the passage or answer choices any more quickly than anyone else; in fact, that person may read the passage more slowly and carefully than others. The "fast" LSATer will instead recognize the question type instantly, utilize the correct strategy, and know what they are looking for in the answer choices before even glancing at the choices. On this question, a "fast" test-taker would see (A), immediately recognize that it's consistent with their anticipation, and select it, giving the remaining answer choices an at-most cursory reading. The "slow" LSATer might speed through the passage, not know exactly what type of question they're doing or how to effectively answer it, and will either not take the extra beat to anticipate what the correct answer will say. As a result of their underdeveloped anticipation, they'll spend far too much time debating between the answer choices and re-reading the passage.

There will be challenging, time-consuming questions that will slow down the well-prepared and under-prepared test-takers alike, but the "fast" test-takers will answer the questions that follow consistent and predictable patterns — like this question — quickly, confidently, and accurately.

The park ranger might agree with this, but it doesn't add support to either of the ranger's conclusions. The principle needs to help justify the ranger's conclusion that it's unfair to cite people for violating the new regulation or that rangers should issue at most a warning when people violate the new regulation. In other words, the ranger's conclusion was about citing people for violating the regulations, not about whether to publicize the regulations widely.

This is tempting because it relates to the premise that even many park rangers don't know about the new fishing restrictions. Even if excuses people for not being aware of regulations, this rule doesn't add support to either of the ranger's conclusions. The principle needs to help justify the ranger's conclusion that it's unfair to cite people for violating the new regulation or that rangers should issue at most a warning when people violate the new regulation. In other words, the ranger's conclusion is about citing people for violating the regulations, not about whether people should be expected to know about the regulations.

This would tend to weaken the argument by putting the responsibility for keeping up with the law on would-be fishers, rather than on the parks to publicize new regulations.

Our ranger never mentioned giving people a chance to explain themselves. This doesn't strengthen the argument by connecting the ranger's premise to the ranger's conclusion — there was no premise or conclusion about giving violators a chance to explain themselves — so it's incorrect.