PrepTest 123

[lcid:3590] Prep Test 123 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S3 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

Editorialist:  In all cultures, it 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

Errors in Reasoning Questions

Stimulus Summary

Almost everyone agrees people should protect family members from harm. Therefore, almost everyone would agree that parents would be right to hide a child falsely accused of a crime from the cops. So almost everyone would likely agree that it is sometimes right to obstruct the cops.

Answer Anticipation

The initial premise here is about what is widely accepted, so we have to accept that as true. However, the next two statements are conclusions, so we can question whether they're supported by the premise. Since they're about what the Editorialist believes people would deny/accept, there's a lot of wiggle room there, as people don't necessarily believe what you'd expect them to believe—the difference between reality/logic and belief is actually a repeated issue on the exam!
Let's look at the intermediate conclusion here. If one believes it's right to protect family members from harm, do they have to believe that it's also right to hide them from the cops if falsely accused? No! Maybe they believe that hiding a child from the cops isn't likely to protect that child from harm. Maybe they believe letting the justice system play out is more important that protecting the child from harm. In either case, there's a wide gap here.
Putting that aside, if we accept the intermediate conclusion as true, does the main conclusion follow? This seems to be a better argument. If you accept that it's right to hide a child from the police, then you would likely also accept that it's right to sometimes obstruct the police in their work, which presumably involves finding those accused of crimes.
Since the logic between the initial premise and the intermediate conclusion isn't airtight, that's where we should focus when looking at the answers.

Answer choices

  1. A
    utilizes a single type Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    Incorrect. The single example here is about hiding a child from the cops. That's used to justify a belief that "it is sometimes" alright to obstruct police work. A single example is enough to justify a generalization that something is sometimes okay, so this answer is incorrect.
  2. B
    fails to consider the Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B matches the stem
    Correct. The Editorialist does establish a moral duty in the first premise, but he doesn't establish it as the most important moral duty, or the only moral duty. If there are other moral duties—such as following the laws of a country—that outweigh the duty to protect a family member, then the intermediate conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. This answer points out this flaw, so it's the correct answer.
  3. C
    presumes, without providing justification, Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    Incorrect. The argument itself doesn't talk about justice. In fact, if allowing the police to arrest an innocent person assists justice, if anything, that's a reason not to hide a child. This answer choice is out of scope, and the content isn't a presumption of the argument but rather something that runs counter to it, so we can rule it out.
  4. D
    takes for granted that Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    Incorrect. The argument doesn't assume that there is no moral obligation to obey the law, just that any moral obligation to obey the law is overridden by the duty to protect a family member from harm. While this answer does speak to competing moral duties, it's too strong to be correct.
  5. E
    takes for granted that Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited
    Incorrect. First, generally, when the LSAT talks about what someone knows and not what someone believes, the known thing is taken as true. That said, even if the child's innocence is uncertain, the moral obligation stated is to protect a child from harm. Even if the child is guilty, that moral obligation might justify hiding the child. So the argument doesn't assume anything about the child's innocence!

What this tests

Discussion

  • Explanation 1 reply

    Started by skrh

View all discussions Start a discussion