PrepTest 127

[lcid:3604] Prep Test 127 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S1 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

When presented with the Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: D

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

Illustration Questions / Principle Questions

Stimulus Summary

Ellison committed the crime, but he was caught when the company monitored him illegally, so they can ask him to stop but can’t punish him.

Answer Anticipation

These Principle (Illustration) questions are the worst of all Principle worlds. Instead of presenting a principle and asking us to find a situation that conforms to it, or giving us a situation and asking us to find a principle that underlies it, we need to do both. The stimulus gives us a situation, and we need to determine the underlying principle. Then, we need to take that principle and find an answer that conforms to it. So let’s dive in.
Let’s start by analyzing the stimulus and figuring out the principle. Here, the conclusion is that the company wouldn’t be justified in punishing Ellison. Why not, even though he admittedly committed a crime? Because the company committed a crime in order to obtain the evidence against him. So the principle underlying this situation is:
If evidence is obtained illegally, then the group who obtained that evidence is unjustified in punishing illegal activity.
From here, there are too many potentially correct situations that conform to this to measure, so we need to head into the answer choices and find the one that matches up.

Answer choices

  1. A
    After Price confessed to Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    Long didn’t discover Price’s crime through illegal means; rather, he responded by committing the same crime. That’s a different situation, so it doesn’t illustrate the same principle as the stimulus.
  2. B
    Shakila's secretary has admitted Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    There’s no indication that anyone discovered the secretary’s transgression through illegal means, so the situations don’t illustrate the same principle.
  3. C
    After Takashi told Sarah's Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    There’s no indication that Takashi was doing anything wrong on the day when he saw Sarah breaking curfew. Additionally, Sarah’s parents aren’t established as doing anything wrong here, whereas in the stimulus it was the group that committed the second crime that was said to be unjustified in punishing someone.
  4. D
    After a conservation officer Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D matches the stem
    In this case, someone (Kuttner) admitted to committing a crime. However, the person who discovered it (the conservation officer) was acting illegally when they discovered the crime (“was trespassing”). According to the principle underlying the stimulus, that would mean the conservation officer isn’t justified in punishing Kuttner, which is the conclusion reached in this answer. It is therefore illustrating the same principle as the stimulus and is correct.
  5. E
    Ramirez was forced by Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited
    The conclusion that the board is unjustified in taking action is based on them previously pardoning people for similar crimes, not on them discovering the evidence against Ramirez illegally.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion