PrepTest 157

[lcid:3725] Prep Test 157 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S2 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

Essayist: Commitment to relationships Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: E

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Argument or Facts

Argument

Valid or Flawed

Flawed

Strategy Overview

Argument or facts? Always an argument, so identify the conclusion and premises Identify gap between premises and conclusion Anticipate, and diagram, the principle that will strengthen the argument Should resemble: "Premise → Conclusion" or "NOT Conclusion → NOT Premise"

Answer Anticipation

The phrase "following principles" in the question stem tells us this is the Strengthen variety of a Principle question. On these questions, we'll need to look for an answer choice that provides a principle, or rule, that connects the argument's premises to its conclusion. To do that, we usually just have to identify the premises and conclusion and then anticipate a principle that looks like "Premises → Conclusion." The essayist's premise and premise/conclusion establish that commitments can be made to good or bad things and that commitments are often only arrangements that outlast their original purpose. The essayist's main conclusion asserts that all commitments should, therefore, be considered morally neutral. So, a principle that looks like "Premises → Conclusion" will connect the essay's premises that commitments can be made to good or bad things or that commitments are often arrangements that outlast their original purpose to the conclusion that commitments should be considered morally neutral. The correct answer could look like, "Can be good or bad → Morally neutral" (e.g., "If an arrangement can be made for good or bad reasons, then all the arrangement should be considered morally neutral"), or, "Arrangements sometimes outlast their original purpose → Morally neutral" (e.g., "If an arrangement sometimes persists even though it outlasted its original purpose, then all the arrangement should be considered morally neutral").

Answer choices

  1. A
    Any commitment that is Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    This principle doesn't resemble "Premises → Conclusion." Instead, it resembles "Conclusion → Premises." The "if" part of this principle says a commitment is morally neutral. That part should go in the "then" part of the principle because that's the conclusion the essayist reaches, and we can only make conclusions about the "then" part of an "if-then" statement. Moreover, the "has outlasted its original justification or deserves no praise" part should go on the "if" side since those are premises the essayist uses.

    The correct answer to a Principle (Strengthen) question should resemble "Premise → Conclusion." It can't go the other way — it shouldn't resemble "Conclusion → Premise." For this reason, (A) is incorrect.

  2. B
    Commitment to a relationship Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    If we diagrammed this principle, it would be, "Commitment virtuous ←→ Relationship or career is good." (The "when, but only when" part establishes the double-sided arrow. This means these conditions have a reciprocal relationship — either both or neither are present.)

    This principle, however, won't justify the essayist's conclusion that all commitments are morally neutral. It would establish that the commitments made to bad careers and relationships are not morally virtuous. That doesn't imply that these commitments are morally neutral, however. They could be morally bad! Moreover, this principle would establish that commitments made to good careers and relationships are morally virtuous, not neutral.

  3. C
    If a commitment deserves Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    This answer choice is tempting, but it won't help justify that all commitments are morally neutral. The essayist states that some commitments deserve no praise. According to this principle, those commitments would be morally neutral. But what about the commitments that deserve praise? Are those morally neutral, too? This principle doesn't tell us that, so it doesn't strengthen the essayist's reasoning.

  4. D
    If a commitment has Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    This principle doesn't resemble "Premises → Conclusion." The essayist establishes that some commitments outlast their original justification. According to this principle, that would mean that those commitments are not morally virtuous. But that doesn't mean that they're morally neutral. They could be morally bad. Moreover, this principle doesn't tell us whether other commitments are morally neutral. Therefore, it doesn't establish that all commitments are morally neutral.

  5. E
    All commitments are morally Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E matches the stem

    This isn't quite what we anticipated, but it connects one of the essayist's premises to their conclusion and thus resembles "Premises → Conclusion." Translated to a more straightforward "if-then" statement, this says, "If any commitments are undeserving of praise, then all commitments are morally neutral." This connects the essayist's premise that "commitment to a relationship that benefits none of the people involved deserves no praise" to the conclusion that "all commitments should be seen as morally neutral." The essayist identifies one commitment undeserving of praise, so this principle would establish that all commitments must be morally neutral.

    Therefore, this principle bridges the gap between the essayist's premise and conclusion. We can confidently select (E).

Discussion

No threads yet—be the first to ask a question or share an approach.

View all discussions Start a discussion