PrepTest 135

[lcid:3636] Prep Test 135 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S1 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

Evan: I am a Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: A

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

Must Be True Questions / Principle Questions

Stimulus Summary

Belief - Eating meat is wrong because it’s wrong to inflict pain to get food
Some “vegetarians” - Eating fish is fine because they may not feel pleasure/pain
Rebuttal - Needless suffering is wrong, so we should assume seafood can feel pain

Answer Anticipation

Evan’s argument is interesting here because he lays out a principle that justifies his vegetarianism, but he then goes on to engage in an argument that uses that principle but then extends from it. That initial principle he lays out - inflicting pain on animals to obtain food is immoral - is thus not the principle that we’re meant to find an answer matching.
So what is the principle we need to find an answer conforming to? Well, that’s going to be the principle that underlies his conclusion about avoiding seafood. Why does he think that fish should be avoided as food? Because, while it’s uncertain that fish can feel pain and thus suffer, the “benefit of the doubt” should be extended to them. In other words, when something is important and unknown (whether eating fish causes needless suffering and is thus immoral), we should err on the side of caution.
With that principle from Evan’s argument established, we can head to the answers and find one that conforms to it.

Answer choices

  1. A
    I do not know Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A matches the stem
    In this case, the person making the argument here wants to err on the side of caution and repay Farah, despite not remembering if she was already repaid. That’s the same principle as the stimulus, so this answer is correct.
  2. B
    It is uncertain whether Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    The conclusion here is about expectations, not taking (or refraining to take) an action out of abundant caution.
  3. C
    I am opposed to Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    This argument analyzes the long-term costs and benefits of an action, it doesn’t rely on an abundant sense of caution in a situation where something is unknown.
  4. D
    Updating our computer security Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    This argument is about taking a course of action to see a benefit, not out of an abundance of caution.
  5. E
    Isabel Allende lived through Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited
    This answer isn’t even clearly an argument, and it certainly doesn’t establish that anyone was erring on the side of caution because of a lack of information/certainty.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion