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
Adam has no experience in critiquing ~E essays.
Adam should not judge the contest. ~J
The argument assumes that if one J → E should judge an essay contest, then one should have experience critiquing essays.
Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify Mariah's argument?
A suspicion of bias is
This makes it less likely that Adam should not judge the contest.
7% picked this
Expertise should be the primary
Why this is right
This bridges the gap between J → E judging an essay contest and having experience.
Skill tested: Principle-Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
86% picked this
The ability of a judge
This weakens Mariah’s argument because her argument rests on the premise that Adam has no experience in critiquing essays.
1% picked this
In selecting a contest judge,
This weakens Mariah’s argument because her argument rests on the premise that Adam has no experience in critiquing essays.
1% picked this
A contest judge, no matter
This connects the possibility of bias B → ~J with not serving as a contest judge. But this relies on different evidence than Mariah’s.
5% picked this
Continue the review in LSAT Lab
Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.
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.