Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT114 S4 Q23 Explanation

If an act of civil

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

TopicsPrinciple-Conform

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

If an act of civil disobedience—willfully breaking a specific law in order to bring about legal reform—is done out of self-interest alone and not out of a concern for others, it cannot be justified. But one is justified in one’s conscience requires one to do so.

What this question is testing

Principle-Conform

Your task

Break the argument into its conclusion and evidence, then do exactly what the question stem asks with that structure.

Common trap

Answers that sound relevant to the topic but don't connect to the argument's actual reasoning.

Winning move

Predict what a right answer must do, then test each choice against the conclusion-evidence gap.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
23.

Which one of the following judgments most closely conforms to the principles

Answer choices

  1. Bad Trigger Match12% picked this

    Keisha’s protest against what she perceived to be a brutal and repressive dictatorship in another country was an act of justified civil disobedience, because

    Since this one is concluding that the act of civil disobedience was justified, we should be trying to use rule 2. Does this argument establish that Keisha performed an act of civil disobedience because her conscience required her to do so? Nope. It just says she acted purely out of concern for the people of that country (language from rule 1, which is totally irrelevant here, since rule 1 can only prove that an act of C.D. was unjustified).

  2. Bad Trigger Match6% picked this

    Janice’s protest against a law that forbade labor strikes was motivated solely by a desire to help local mine workers obtain fair wages. But

    Since this one is concluding that the act of civil disobedience was not justified, we should be trying to use rule 1. Does this argument establish that Janice performed an act of civil disobedience out of self-interest alone / not out of concern for others? No, it says the opposite. It said she did it solely out of concern for others.

  3. Bad Trigger Match9% picked this

    In organizing an illegal protest against the practice in her country of having prison inmates work eighteen hours per day, Georgette performed an act

    Since this one is concluding that the act of civil disobedience was justified, we should be trying to use rule 2. Does this argument establish that Georgette performed an act of civil disobedience because her conscience required her to do so? Nope. It just says she acted purely out of concern for the people of that country (language from rule 1, which is totally irrelevant here, since rule 1 can only prove that an act of C.D. was unjustified).

  4. Correct67% picked this

    Maria’s deliberate violation of a law requiring prepublication government approval of all printed materials was an act of justified civil disobedience: though her interest

    Why this is right

    Since this one is concluding that the act of civil disobedience was justified, we should be trying to use rule 2. Does this argument establish that Maria performed an act of civil disobedience because her conscience required her to do so? Yup! It says "she violated the law because her conscience required doing so".

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

  5. Bad Trigger Match5% picked this

    In organizing a parade of motorcyclists riding without helmets through the capital city, Louise’s act was not one of justified civil disobedience: she was

    Since this one is concluding that the act of civil disobedience was not justified, we should be trying to use rule 1. Does this argument establish that Louise performed an act of civil disobedience out of self interest alone, not out of concern for others? No, it doesn't talk about that at all. Instead, it's inappropriately talking about conscience as though we're using rule 2. Rule 2 only has the power to prove that an act of civil disobedience is justified.

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

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

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