Logical Reasoning

PT114 · S4 · Q2 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

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 Conclusion (Implicit)

It was appropriate that we docked the entire class two days of recess, even though not all of them were culprits.

Principal's Evidence

It's like being caught in a traffic jam caused by an accident. People who aren't involved in the accident nevertheless have to suffer by sitting in traffic until the road gets cleared.

Evaluate

The principal's argument relies on an analogy (this situation is like this other situation).

Whenever we're trying to weaken or object to an Analogy, we start by thinking to ourselves, "How are these two situations unfair to compare?"

If we were Ms. Smith, what could we say in response to the Principal's analogy?

We might say,

Goal

Let's look for an answer complaining that the two situations are not really fair to compare.

The principal's response to Ms. Smith's complaint is most vulnerable to criticism on which one of the following grounds?

It makes a generalization about
No Generalization
The principal goes straight into an analogy. He doesn't make any general statement about all the children in the class.
4% picked this
It suggests that throwing raisins
Too Strong: as much inconvenience
The principal is claiming that the two situations are analogous in the sense that people who weren't involved in the disruption are nonetheless forced to suffer consequences. He never suggests that the fallout from some kids throwing raisins is equivalently inconvenient to being caught in a traffic jam.
8% picked this
Correct
It does not acknowledge the
Why this is right
This speaks to the Meaningful Difference we were looking for. It shows why his analogy is weak. When there's an accident, and the traffic lanes leading up to the accident get clogged with traffic, then the cars in traffic get "punished" even though they had nothing to do with the accident. But that's an unavoidable part of the physics of highway driving. When some of the highway is obstructed, the flow of traffic has to compress into fewer lanes, creating congestion. "Losing two days recess" was not an unavoidable part of dealing with the kids who threw raisins. The principal was just lazy / sloppy / over-aggressive in terms of deciding to apply that punishment to all. In other words, the crucial difference is that in a traffic jam you have no choice but to suffer the traffic, whereas the principal had a choice about whether the innocent kids needed to suffer.
Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
82% picked this
It assumes that Ms. Smith’s
Not Assumed: son is guilty
The principal never assumes that Ms. Smith's son is guilty. He is fully acknowledging that some kids who are getting punished had nothing to do with the raisin throwing. That's why his analogy uses wording like, "People who aren't involved in the accident (just as your son was not involved in the raisin throwing) nevertheless have to suffer."
3% picked this
It attempts to confuse the
No Facts About Incident
The principal goes straight into an analogy. He doesn't introduce any facts about the incident.
2% 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