Logical Reasoning

PT106 · S2 · Q12 After several attempts to distract

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

After several attempts to distract his young parrot from chewing on furniture, George reluctantly took an expert’s advice and gently hit the parrot’s beak whenever the bird started to chew furniture.

Judgment on George (should = opinion)

George should not have hit his pet for chewing on furniture.

Reason (since)

Chewing on furniture would not have hurt the bird.

Implicit Principle

If action X wouldn't hurt your pet, then you shouldn't hit your pet for action X.

Judgment on Carla (so)

Carla was justified in hitting her pet when it bounded into a busy street.

Reason

Now the pet enters the street only when accompanied by Carla.

Evaluate

When we read this, we might be thinking,

The author would have to say that these are two different situations; there's a meaningful difference that makes him shift his pet-hitting policy from "not cool" to "justified".

He never spells it out, but the suggested difference is that in Carla's case, the action she was trying to prevent could have easily hurt the puppy. He probably thinks, .

12.

Which one of the following principles, if established, would justify the judgments about George's and Carla's actions?

  1. When disciplining an animal physically,

    Doesn't Support Either Judgment

    The conclusion this rule would support is, "You should use an object when disciplining your animal, not your bare hands". Neither conclusion sounded like that.

    1% picked this

  2. Correct

    When training an animal, physical

    Why this is right

    This gets at the salient difference the author cared about between George's situation and Carla's, whether or not the action the pet was committing was the type of action that could hurt the pet. This answer would basically prove the judgment about George's situation, because it gives us this rule: Behavior X would not result → Should not use in serious harm to the animal phys discipline Chewing on furniture would not result in serious harm to the parrot, so George should not have used physical discipline. This rule doesn't prove the judgment about Carla because it's only a rule that can prove "should not use discipline". But it still adds a little plausibility to the Carla judgment because we know that her situation at least falls within the subset of cases in which it might be appropriate to use physical discipline. Ultimately, despite that asymmetric strengthening value, it's still our best available answer.

    Skill tested: Principle-Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    92% picked this

  3. Using physical discipline to train

    Doesn't Justify Either Judgment

    Neither of the situations clearly establish the trigger for this rule, so this rule isn't useful for applying to either George or Carla's situation: All alternative strategies physical discipline for correcting bad → is justified behavior have failed We don't know whether George or Carla exhausted all alternative strategies before trying physical discipline, so we can't apply this rule to either of their situations.

    4% picked this

  4. Physical discipline should not be

    Weakens Judgment #2

    Both George's young parrot and Carla's puppy are immature animals. So while this rule would strengthen the judgment that George should not have used physical discipline, it would weaken the judgment that Carla was justified in using physical discipline.

    0% picked this

  5. Physical discipline should not be

    Weakens Judgment #2

    This uses the trigger word except which is like unless / without, and "if not" trigger. not a persistent → physical discipline should behavior problem not be used Carla hit her puppy because it escaped from the yard and ran into the street. That sounds like a one-off event, not a persistent behavior problem the puppy has. According to this rule, if the puppy's prison break was not a persistent problem, then Carla should not have used physical discipline, which weakens the judgment that "Carla was justified in using physical discipline".

    3% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free