LSAT Principle and Parallel Reasoning 3 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Principle: 'A regulation is justified only if the harm it prevents is greater than the burden it imposes on those regulated.' An economist argues that a proposed sugar tax is not justified. Which finding would most directly support this conclusion?
- Sugar consumption causes measurable public health harm.
- The tax would reduce sugar purchases by 15% among low-income families.
- The tax would cost manufacturers $2 billion annually while preventing only $500 million in health costs. (Correct answer)
- The government has a history of misusing tax revenue.
Correct answer: The tax would cost manufacturers $2 billion annually while preventing only $500 million in health costs.
If the burden ($2B on manufacturers) exceeds the harm prevented ($500M in health costs), the regulation fails to satisfy the stated principle's justification condition.
Question 2: Which argument most closely parallels the reasoning: 'We should elect leaders who put the public interest above personal gain. Candidate Osei has donated her entire salary to charity for three years. Therefore, we should elect Candidate Osei'?
- We should hire employees who are reliable. Marcus has never missed a deadline. Therefore, we should hire Marcus. (Correct answer)
- We should invest in companies with strong ethics. EcoFirm has strong ethics. Therefore, EcoFirm will be profitable.
- Leaders who sacrifice personally for the public are rare. Osei is rare. Therefore, Osei is a leader.
- We should support policies that help workers. This policy helps workers and corporations. Therefore, we should support this policy.
Correct answer: We should hire employees who are reliable. Marcus has never missed a deadline. Therefore, we should hire Marcus.
Both arguments apply a general criterion for a role, identify a candidate who meets that criterion via a specific behavior, and conclude we should choose that candidate.
Question 3: A philosopher argues: 'Actions are right if and only if they maximize overall happiness. Lying to protect a friend from embarrassment increases overall happiness. Therefore, lying in this case is right.' A critic responds that this conclusion is flawed because the principle, consistently applied, would justify harmful deception. What type of counter-argument is the critic using?
- Attacking the credibility of the philosopher rather than the argument.
- Showing that the principle leads to unacceptable conclusions in other cases. (Correct answer)
- Denying that lying can ever increase overall happiness.
- Arguing that the definition of happiness is too vague to apply.
Correct answer: Showing that the principle leads to unacceptable conclusions in other cases.
The critic extends the principle to other cases where it yields clearly wrong results, a reductio ad absurdum strategy that challenges the principle's validity.
Question 4: Principle: 'A contract clause is unenforceable if it was not disclosed to the signing party before the contract was executed.' A court must determine whether a penalty clause is enforceable. Which fact is MOST relevant to applying this principle?
- The penalty clause is unusually harsh compared to industry standards.
- The signing party's lawyer failed to read the contract carefully.
- The penalty clause appeared in a footnote added to the contract after the party signed. (Correct answer)
- The contract was for a commercial rather than a personal transaction.
Correct answer: The penalty clause appeared in a footnote added to the contract after the party signed.
If the clause was added after signing, it was not disclosed before execution, directly triggering the unenforceability condition in the stated principle.
Question 5: Which of the following exhibits a reasoning flaw that most closely matches the flaw in this argument: 'The most creative people often work in chaotic environments. Therefore, if you work in a chaotic environment, you will become more creative'?
- Wealthy people often own art. So buying art will make you wealthy. (Correct answer)
- Healthy people exercise regularly. So you should exercise regularly to stay healthy.
- Brilliant scientists make discoveries. So all scientists are brilliant.
- Risk-takers sometimes succeed. So taking risks is always worthwhile.
Correct answer: Wealthy people often own art. So buying art will make you wealthy.
Both arguments infer that adopting a property associated with a group will cause you to acquire the group's defining characteristic — confusing correlation with a reversible causal recipe.
Question 6: A principle states: 'Punishment should be proportional to the harm caused, not merely to the intent of the offender.' A defense attorney invokes this principle to argue for a reduced sentence. Which factual scenario best supports the attorney's argument?
- The defendant intended to cause serious harm but the victim suffered no lasting injury. (Correct answer)
- The defendant acted recklessly and caused substantial property damage.
- The defendant had prior convictions for similar offenses.
- The defendant's intent was clear from written communications found at the scene.
Correct answer: The defendant intended to cause serious harm but the victim suffered no lasting injury.
When intent was harmful but actual harm was minimal, the principle that punishment tracks harm rather than intent directly supports a reduced sentence.
Question 7: Lawmaker: 'We permit citizens to use reasonable force to protect their property. A homeowner used force to stop a burglar from stealing her car. Therefore, the homeowner's use of force was permissible.' Which additional premise is NECESSARY to make this argument logically valid?
- The homeowner had no other means of stopping the burglary.
- The force the homeowner used was reasonable. (Correct answer)
- Burglary is one of the most common crimes in this jurisdiction.
- The homeowner had previously been a victim of theft.
Correct answer: The force the homeowner used was reasonable.
The principle permits only reasonable force, so for the conclusion to follow, we must establish that the force used in this case actually was reasonable.
LSAT Principle and Parallel Reasoning 3
Principle: 'A regulation is justified only if the harm it prevents is greater than the burden it imposes on those regulated.' An economist argues that a proposed sugar tax is not justified.
Which finding would most directly support this conclusion?