PrepTest 156

[lcid:3723] Prep Test 156 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S4 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

Letter to the editor: Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: C

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 letter's premises discuss how antinuclear activists only want to rid the world of nuclear power and how finding new ways to dispose of nuclear waste would probably mean people would continue to rely on nuclear power. In other words, if antinuclear activists found new ways to dispose of nuclear waste, then they'd undermine their goal of getting rid of nuclear power. The letter's conclusion asserts that nuclear power advocates are being dishonest when they ask antinuclear activists to help find new ways to dispose of nuclear waste. So, a principle that looks like "Premises → Conclusion" will connect the letters' premises to the conclusion. So, we'll look for an "if-then" statement that says that if you ask a group to do something that would probably undermine the group's goal, then you're being dishonest. In other words, the correct answer could look like "Ask a group to do something that would undermine the group's goals → Dishonest."

Answer choices

  1. A
    If other options are Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    This principle doesn't resemble "Premises → Conclusion." The letter's premises do not discuss whether "other options" to nuclear power are "available" or whether nuclear power "has the potential of causing harm." Moreover, the letter's conclusion isn't about whether it is "irresponsible to take a possibly beneficial course of action." In short, this "if-then" statement doesn't connect the letter's premises or conclusion, so it's incorrect.

  2. B
    It is better to Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    This principle doesn't resemble "Premises → Conclusion." While the letter's premises discuss antinuclear activists' preference to eliminate "a potentially harmful" practice rather than try to improve it, the conclusion never asserts that it's "better" to eliminate that practice. Moreover, the premises don't establish that "improving" the practice will not reduce the harm it causes. In short, this "if-then" statement doesn't connect the letter's premises or conclusion, so it's wrong.

  3. C
    If one is calling Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C matches the stem

    This principle resembles "Premises → Conclusion." The letter's premises establish that the nuclear power advocates are "calling on" the antinuclear activists to "act in a way that will possibly undermine their goals." The letter's premises say that if the antinuclear activists help find a better way to dispose of nuclear waste, then the use of nuclear power would become more acceptable and more likely to continue. This would undermine the antinuclear activists' goal to rid the world of nuclear power. Further, the letter's conclusion asserts that "it is dishonest" for the nuclear power advocates to ask the antinuclear activists to help find a better way to dispose of nuclear waste to "live up to their own ideals." In short, this "if-then" statement connects the letter's premises to its conclusion, thereby justifying the reasoning in the letter's argument. We can select this answer choice and finish up this question.

  4. D
    It is irresponsible to Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    This principle doesn't resemble "Premises → Conclusion." The letter's premises do not say that the nuclear power advocates do not believe that it's acceptable to use nuclear power or find a better way to dispose of nuclear waste. In fact, commonsense dictates that nuclear power advocates would necessarily find both practices acceptable. Moreover, the letter's conclusion doesn't argue that it's "irresponsible" to try to make the antinuclear activists believe that it's acceptable to use nuclear power or find a better way to dispose of nuclear waste. In short, this "if-then" statement doesn't connect the letter's premises or conclusion, so it's incorrect.

  5. E
    It is dishonest to Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    This principle doesn't quite doesn't resemble "Premises → Conclusion." To diagram this principle, we can use the "if-denying" keyword "without." That would give us "NOT dishonest to ask people to live up to their own ideals → Reveal whether your ideals conflict with others'," or its flipside, "NOT reveal whether your ideals conflict with others → Dishonest to ask people to live up to their own ideals." The flipside's "then" condition matches up with the letter's conclusion. However, the letter's premises do not say that the nuclear power advocates did not reveal whether their ideals conflict with the antinuclear activists. In fact, it's probably apparent to both sides that their ideals conflict (at least as far as they relate to the use of nuclear power). In short, this "if-then" statement doesn't connect the letter's premises or conclusion, so it's incorrect.

Discussion

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

View all discussions Start a discussion