Logical Reasoning

PT114 · S4 · Q1 Ms. Smith: I am upset

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

Ms. Smith: I am upset that my son's entire class lost two days of recess because some of the children were throwing raisins in the cafeteria.

Principal's Comments

Yes, your son wasn't guilty. and Yes, your son suffered from the punishment we issued of "no recess for two days". but Sometimes people who aren't guilty nonetheless have to suffer consequences, like when you aren't involved in an accident but still have to suffer in the traffic jam that builds up because of it.

Evaluate / Goal

It feels really hard to predict where we're supposed to go with this. Normally if we're being asked to infer, we look for facts we could combine in order to derive some inference. But the principal just makes a quick analogy.

Let's look for the most safely worded, most derivable answer we can find. It will probably have to do with spelling out how this analogy is meant to apply to the cafeteria situation.

1.

If the principal is speaking sincerely, then it can be inferred from what the principal says that the principal believes that

  1. many children were throwing raisins

    Too Strong: many

    "Many" is not an inherently strong word. It doesn't have a precise minimum, but something like "at least 5" is a working definition. If you only had 1 or 2 beers in the fridge, it wouldn't be appropriate to say "There are many beers in the fridge". Meanwhile, it would still be fine to say, "There is some beer in the fridge", because some means 'at least one'. It seems like the principal would accept Ms. Smith's statement that "some children were throwing raisins", but we have no reason to think the principal is upgrading that to many children were throwing raisins.

    3% picked this

  2. Correct

    Ms. Smith’s son might not

    Why this is right

    This is safely worded (might) and is spelling out the way the analogy was meant to apply to the cafeteria situation. Since the principal is likening the son's situation to someone who "wasn't involved in the accident" but has to suffer anyway, he is saying that Ms. Smith's son "wasn't involved in the raisin throwing, but has to suffer the lost recess consequence anyway".

    Skill tested: Must be True · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    85% picked this

  3. after an accident the resulting

    Out of Scope

    Out of Scope: police activity Too Strong: generally We have no idea whether the principal thinks that more than 50% of the resulting traffic jams are caused by police activity. Maybe he thinks that most of the traffic jams are caused by tow truck activity, or by people involved in the accident failing to move their cars to the shoulder, or by people driving in the opposite direction rubber-necking.

    1% picked this

  4. Ms. Smith’s son knows who

    Out of Scope

    Out of Scope: knew who it was We could infer this from Ms. Smith's statements, since she said that "it was clear to everyone just who the culprits were", but nothing the principal says touches on this subject. In the analogy, there isn't any part where the principal is like, "Even though you know which car caused the accident, you still have to suffer for it".

    1% picked this

  5. losing two days of recess

    Out of Scope: deter

    Nothing in the principal's analogy speaks to deterring future car accidents. In fact, this answer speaks to how the principal's analogy doesn't apply to the situation: In a car accident, it's potentially an accident, no one is at fault, and the reason everyone in the traffic jam has to suffer is because there isn't any other option. In the cafeteria incident, it wasn't accidental, specific people are at fault, and there are other options of dealing with the cleanup/aftermath that don't involve everyone suffering.

    9% 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