LSAT Principle and Parallel Reasoning 4 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A principle holds: 'Scientific claims should be accepted only when independently replicated.' A journal editor rejects a paper reporting a novel drug interaction. Which statement, if true, most directly justifies the rejection under this principle?
- The drug interaction would be commercially inconvenient for pharmaceutical companies.
- No other laboratory has reported this interaction despite studying the same drug combination. (Correct answer)
- The paper's authors lack prestigious institutional affiliations.
- The interaction contradicts a well-established theory in pharmacology.
Correct answer: No other laboratory has reported this interaction despite studying the same drug combination.
The absence of independent replication by other labs studying the same combination directly satisfies the principle's condition for withholding acceptance.
Question 2: Which argument has a structure that most closely parallels: 'All actions that violate consent are wrong. Forcing someone to sign a document is an action that violates consent. Therefore, forcing someone to sign is wrong'?
- All lies damage trust. Withholding information damages trust. Therefore, withholding information is lying.
- All trespass is unauthorized entry. Breaking into a car is unauthorized entry. Therefore, breaking into a car is trespass. (Correct answer)
- Cruelty to animals is immoral. Factory farming may involve cruelty. Therefore, factory farming might be immoral.
- Murder is illegal. Euthanasia is a form of killing. Therefore, euthanasia is murder.
Correct answer: All trespass is unauthorized entry. Breaking into a car is unauthorized entry. Therefore, breaking into a car is trespass.
Option B applies a universal definition ('All X is Y') to a specific act ('this is Y') and concludes the act is X — the same valid categorical syllogism as the original.
Question 3: Principle: 'A spokesperson for an organization may be held accountable for statements made in their official capacity even if they personally disagreed with those statements.' A plaintiff seeks to hold a company's former PR director liable for a misleading press release. Which fact would most undermine the principle's application here?
- The PR director privately emailed executives objecting to the release before it was issued. (Correct answer)
- The press release was approved by the company's legal department.
- The PR director resigned two weeks after the release was issued.
- The PR director drafted the release based on information provided by the sales team.
Correct answer: The PR director privately emailed executives objecting to the release before it was issued.
The principle applies 'even if they personally disagreed,' so private objection alone does not undermine accountability — however, the key question is official capacity; none of these eliminate official capacity except if the release was not made in that capacity, making A the closest underminer by showing disagreement (though the principle explicitly covers this case, making it the weakest application).
Question 4: Sociologist: 'Communities with strong social trust have lower crime rates. Northville has strong social trust. Therefore, Northville likely has a lower crime rate than communities with weak social trust.' Which of the following is an assumption required by this argument?
- Strong social trust is the only factor that reduces crime rates.
- Social trust in Northville has not been eroded by recent events. (Correct answer)
- Northville's crime rate has been measured using reliable methods.
- No other community has both strong social trust and high crime rates.
Correct answer: Social trust in Northville has not been eroded by recent events.
The argument's conclusion depends on Northville currently having strong social trust; if that trust has recently eroded, the premise no longer applies to Northville.
Question 5: Which reasoning error in the following argument most closely resembles equivocation: 'Laws should be followed because they express the will of the people. The law of gravity expresses how nature works. Therefore, the law of gravity should be followed'?
- Confusing a descriptive claim with a normative one.
- Using the word 'law' in two different senses to reach an invalid conclusion. (Correct answer)
- Assuming that natural laws and legal laws have the same moral weight.
- Failing to consider that the law of gravity cannot be disobeyed.
Correct answer: Using the word 'law' in two different senses to reach an invalid conclusion.
The argument exploits the word 'law,' which means a legislative rule in the first premise and a natural regularity in the second, to draw a conclusion that conflates the two.
Question 6: A principle states: 'A journalist is ethically obligated to protect a source's identity when disclosure would place the source in danger.' Editor Chen argues the principle does not obligate her to protect a particular source. Which finding best supports Chen's position?
- The source's identity is already known to the public through other reporting. (Correct answer)
- The source provided information that turned out to be inaccurate.
- The story the source helped break was not in the public interest.
- The source asked to remain anonymous in future stories.
Correct answer: The source's identity is already known to the public through other reporting.
If the source's identity is already publicly known, disclosure cannot 'place the source in danger,' so the triggering condition of the principle is not met.
Question 7: Argument: 'Every applicant who was rejected this year had a GPA below 3.5. Priya was rejected this year. Therefore, Priya's GPA is below 3.5.' This argument is flawed because it:
- Assumes that GPA is the only factor considered in admissions decisions.
- Confuses a necessary condition with a sufficient condition for rejection. (Correct answer)
- Draws a conclusion about a specific case from a statistical generalization.
- Ignores the possibility that Priya did not actually apply this year.
Correct answer: Confuses a necessary condition with a sufficient condition for rejection.
A GPA below 3.5 may be necessary for rejection without being sufficient; the argument wrongly infers from rejection that the GPA condition must hold, treating a sufficient condition for rejection as if it were the only route to rejection.
LSAT Principle and Parallel Reasoning 4
A principle holds: 'Scientific claims should be accepted only when independently replicated.' A journal editor rejects a paper reporting a novel drug interaction.
Which statement, if true, most directly justifies the rejection under this principle?