LSAT Principle and Parallel Reasoning 5 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A principle holds: 'Public officials should recuse themselves from decisions in which they have a personal financial stake.' Alderman Torres argues she need not recuse herself from a vote on a downtown development project. Which fact best supports her position?
- Torres sold her stake in a business near the development site before the vote was scheduled. (Correct answer)
- Torres believes the development will benefit the entire community.
- Torres has voted on similar projects in the past without recusing herself.
- Torres's vote is one of fifteen on the council and is unlikely to be decisive.
Correct answer: Torres sold her stake in a business near the development site before the vote was scheduled.
If Torres divested her financial interest before the vote, she no longer has a personal financial stake, so the principle's recusal condition is not triggered.
Question 2: Which of the following arguments most closely parallels the structure of: 'If a law is unjust, citizens are morally permitted to disobey it. This tax law is unjust. Therefore, citizens are morally permitted to disobey this tax law'?
- If a contract is fraudulent, it is void. This contract is fraudulent. Therefore, this contract is void. (Correct answer)
- If a policy is popular, it should be enacted. This policy is unpopular. Therefore, this policy should not be enacted.
- Unjust laws should be repealed. Citizens can pressure legislators. Therefore, citizens should pressure legislators to repeal unjust laws.
- If someone is guilty, they deserve punishment. The defendant deserves punishment. Therefore, the defendant is guilty.
Correct answer: If a contract is fraudulent, it is void. This contract is fraudulent. Therefore, this contract is void.
Both arguments apply a conditional rule (If P then Q) to a case where P is true, and validly conclude Q — option A mirrors this modus ponens structure precisely.
Question 3: Ethicist: 'We are obligated to prevent great harm when we can do so at little cost to ourselves. Donating $50 to famine relief can save a child's life and costs me little. Therefore, I am obligated to donate.' A critic objects that this principle would require constant sacrifice since there is always suffering to prevent. This objection is best described as:
- A personal attack on the ethicist's credibility.
- A reductio ad absurdum showing the principle has unacceptable implications if consistently applied. (Correct answer)
- An appeal to popular opinion about the limits of moral obligation.
- A straw man misrepresentation of the ethicist's actual principle.
Correct answer: A reductio ad absurdum showing the principle has unacceptable implications if consistently applied.
The critic extends the principle to its logical extreme to show it demands constant sacrifice, a reductio strategy that challenges the principle's acceptability.
Question 4: Principle: 'A business practice is deceptive if it creates a false impression in the mind of a reasonable consumer, regardless of whether any statement made is technically false.' An advertiser claims its practice is not deceptive. Which finding best supports the advertiser's claim?
- A survey finds that no reasonable consumer came away with a false impression from the advertisement. (Correct answer)
- The advertisement was reviewed and approved by the company's legal team.
- The advertisement contained only verifiably true statements about the product.
- Competitors use similar advertising practices without facing regulatory action.
Correct answer: A survey finds that no reasonable consumer came away with a false impression from the advertisement.
The principle hinges on whether a false impression was created in a reasonable consumer's mind; survey evidence that no such impression arose directly negates the principle's condition.
Question 5: Which of the following most accurately identifies the flaw in this reasoning: 'No one complained about the construction noise last month. Therefore, the construction noise did not bother anyone last month'?
- Equivocating on the meaning of 'bother' between premises and conclusion.
- Treating the absence of complaints as proof that no dissatisfaction existed. (Correct answer)
- Confusing a cause with an effect by reversing the logical order.
- Making a hasty generalization from a small sample to the whole population.
Correct answer: Treating the absence of complaints as proof that no dissatisfaction existed.
The argument assumes that people who are bothered will always complain, ignoring reasons why bothered individuals might stay silent, which is an argument from silence fallacy.
Question 6: A principle states: 'Evidence obtained through violations of a defendant's constitutional rights must be excluded from trial.' A prosecutor argues the evidence should be admitted. Which additional principle would, if accepted, most directly support the prosecutor's argument?
- Evidence should be excluded only when its admission would cause substantial prejudice to the jury.
- Police who violate constitutional rights should face disciplinary action as the primary remedy. (Correct answer)
- Defendants who are factually guilty have fewer protections than those who are innocent.
- Courts should weigh the public interest in conviction against the cost of exclusion in each case.
Correct answer: Police who violate constitutional rights should face disciplinary action as the primary remedy.
If the primary remedy for constitutional violations is officer discipline rather than exclusion, the exclusionary rule loses its justification and the prosecutor can argue for admission.
Question 7: Argument: 'Some politicians who accept corporate donations vote against consumer protection laws. Senator Dale accepts corporate donations. Therefore, Senator Dale will vote against consumer protection laws.' The reasoning most closely parallels which of the following?
- Some athletes who train at altitude improve their performance. Coach Rivera trains at altitude. Therefore, Rivera will improve her performance. (Correct answer)
- All athletes who use banned substances should be disqualified. This athlete used banned substances. Therefore, this athlete should be disqualified.
- Some investors who take risks lose money. This investor took a risk. Therefore, this investor is likely to lose money.
- Most doctors recommend exercise. Dr. Park is a doctor. Therefore, Dr. Park recommends exercise.
Correct answer: Some athletes who train at altitude improve their performance. Coach Rivera trains at altitude. Therefore, Rivera will improve her performance.
Both arguments move from 'some members of group X have property Y' to 'this member of group X will have property Y,' committing the same fallacious inference.
LSAT Principle and Parallel Reasoning 5
A principle holds: 'Public officials should recuse themselves from decisions in which they have a personal financial stake.' Alderman Torres argues she need not recuse herself from a vote on a downtown development project.
Which fact best supports her position?