PrepTest 113
[lcid:3551] Prep Test 113 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S4
Logical reasoning
Question prompt
Editorial: The threat of
Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right
Credited answer: B
The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.
Argument or Facts
Argument
Valid or Flawed
Flawed
Question Type
Strengthen with Necessary Premise Questions
Stimulus Summary
Threat of harsh punishment usually causes someone to feel less guilty
Feeling less guilt tends to cause someone to be more likely to do that thing
Conclusion - Threatening harsher punishment could cause people to more frequently ignore the welfare of others
Answer Anticipation
There are two things that we can focus on here when approaching the argument to help us identify the assumption being made.
The first is that this has premises that chain together. They’re not conditional (“usually”, “tendency”), but they are causal, talking about certain things decreasing or reducing other things. We can chain causal ideas together, so the premises let us say:
Harsh punishment usually causes people to feel less guilty, which usually causes them to be more likely to commit a transgression
This is where the second thing we can focus on comes into play - Strengthen with Necessary Premise questions frequently have new concepts that show up in the conclusion that need to be attached to something in the premises. Here, the conclusion talks about increasing the severity of legal punishments for transgressions - in other words, threatening harsher punishment. While that’s a relative term, causal statements are potentially relative, with more of the cause generally leading to more of the effect, so there’s no gap here. However, the other concept raised in the conclusion is people’s tendency to ignore the welfare of others. The premises don’t discuss that, just transgressions.
Therefore, the argument is assuming that transgressions ignore the welfare of others. And since the conclusion is very weak (“may amplify”), we should find a similarly weak answer, as Strengthen with Necessary Assumption questions will rarely have a correct answer that’s stronger than the conclusion.
Answer choices
-
ALegal penalties do not Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice A is not credited
The argument isn’t about determining the morality of actions. The only concepts that arguably deal with morality are guilt and shame, but plenty of people feel those things over moral actions! -
BAt least some actions Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice B matches the stem
This answer establishes that the causal chain the premises connects to the new concept in the conclusion, and it matches the strength of that conclusion (“At least some” and “may” both are weak words of possibility, not probability or certainty). If no actions that ignore the welfare of others are transgressions, then the premises can’t connect to the conclusion and the argument falls apart. -
CPeople who are concerned Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice C is not credited
There’s no connections between a threat of harsh punishment and concern for one’s well-being or being less concerned with the welfare of others and “ignor[ing]” the welfare of others, so this answer is out of scope. -
DThe threat of harsh Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice D is not credited
First, this answer is stronger than the conclusion (“only if”), making it suspect. Second, there’s no discussion of the threats actually being carried out, or punishment itself being a cause, so this answer is out of scope. -
EEveryone has at least Remaining source text redacted.
Why choice E is not credited
The argument is about tendencies and probabilities, so there’s no need for these relationships to hold for “[e]veryone.”
What this tests
Discussion
-
Timing 1 reply
Started by JoeYears
-
Typo 0 replies
Started by ssn443232
-
"When" "must" 1 reply
Started by wparham3