PrepTest 127

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

Question prompt

Editorialist: Some people argue 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

Strengthen with Necessary Premise Questions / Sufficient & Necessary Questions

Stimulus Summary

~Entity has right → ~Obligation to entity
Therefore - Obligation to trees → Trees have rights
~Trees have rights
Therefore - ~Obligation not to cut down trees

Answer Anticipation

This stimulus has a bit of a complex argument structure, so the conditional logic makes it a lot easier for us to track through it!
First, let’s ignore the opposing point - it’s not a part of the Editorialist’s argument, and she doesn’t refer back to it, so we can keep her argument self-contained.
Looking at the initial statement and intermediate conclusion, we can see that it’s valid. The principle raised in the pivot statement is contraposed and applied to trees, which is a valid expression of it. So no gap there.
After that, a follow-up premise establishes that the necessary condition of that intermediate conclusion isn’t met. This allows us to conclude the sufficient condition isn’t met - namely, that there’s no obligation that we have to trees.
The argument then concludes that there’s no obligation not to cut down trees. Isn’t that valid, based on what we just said? It is not. The valid conclusion that the premises allow us to draw is that there’s no obligation that we have to trees. However, there may be an obligation we have to other entities not to cut down trees - e.g., we may owe it to the future generations. The argument is assuming that the only thing we could owe an obligation not to cut down trees is the trees themselves, so let’s find that answer.

Answer choices

  1. A
    If an entity has Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    This answer reverses the connection established in the premises between rights and obligations, but the flaw wasn’t an illegal reversal. Additionally, it’s established that trees don’t have rights, so this answer doesn’t apply to them or, therefore, the argument.
  2. B
    Any entity that has Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    The argument connects entities with rights to others with obligations to them. It doesn’t rely on connecting entities with rights to themselves having obligations.
  3. C
    Only conscious entities are Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    While the argument does rely on trees not being the “sort of things” that can have rights, there’s no indication that this is related to consciousness. In bringing that concept into the argument, this answer is out of scope.
  4. D
    Avoiding cutting down trees Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D matches the stem
    This answer reflects our anticipation. The premises of the argument allow a conclusion to be validly drawn - that we don’t owe it to trees not to cut them down. However, that doesn’t justify the conclusion that there’s no obligation not to cut trees down, as we may owe it to something else not to cut trees down. This answer rules that out, thus justifying the conclusion. If trees are the only things we may owe that obligation to, but we don’t owe it to them, then we don’t have such an obligation. If we can have an obligation to another entity not to cut trees down, the argument falls apart.
  5. E
    One does not always Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited
    If anything, this lines up with some kind of obligation not to cut down trees, running counter to the conclusion.

What this tests

Discussion

  • Necessary assumptoin 4 replies

    Started by Kath

  • Help 3 replies

    Started by Alex07

View all discussions Start a discussion