Logical Reasoning

PT133 · S3 · Q22 Principle: A police officer is eligible

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

Principle: A police officer is eligible for a Mayor's Commendation if the officer has an exemplary record, but not otherwise; an officer eligible for the award who did something this year that exceeded what could be reasonably expected of a police officer should receive the award if the act saved someone's life.

Principle

exemplary record ←→ eligible for Mayor's Commendation

eligible for MC + should receive did something → Mayor's beyond expectations Commendation to save someone's life

Application

Franklin should get a Mayor's Commendation, but Penn should not.

Evaluation / Goal

To establish that Franklin should get the Mayor's Commendation, we need to know - exemplary record (thus eligible) - did more than expected to save a life

To establish that Penn should not get the Mayor's Commendation, we could hear either of these disqualifiers: - doesn't have exemplary record - didn't do more than expected to save a life

22.

From which one of the following sets of facts can the conclusion be properly drawn using the principle?

  1. Correct

    In saving a child from

    Why this is right

    We know that Franklin has the exemplary record and went beyond expectations to save someone's life, which gets him the Mayor's Commendation. We know Penn does not have an exemplary record an thus is not eligible for the Mayor's Commendation.

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

    58% picked this

  2. Both Franklin and Penn have

    Half Scope

    This successfully establishes that Franklin should get the Mayor's Commendation. However, it doesn't give a clear reason for denying Penn. In the case of the drowning child, Penn didn't go beyond expectation to save a life. But maybe he did do that sort of thing at some other point this year (didn't save them from drowning but from getting hit by a bus). Also, our rule allows us to prove you should get the MC, but that doesn't mean if you haven't gone beyond expectations to save a life that you shouldn't get the Mayor's Commendation.

    19% picked this

  3. Neither Franklin nor Penn has

    Half Scope

    Since neither has an exemplary record, neither of them is eligible for the Mayor's Commendation. That proves that Penn shouldn't get it, but it also proves that Franklin shouldn't get it, regardless of his heroism.

    4% picked this

  4. At least once this year,

    Unknown Exemplary Record

    Without telling us whether Franklin and Penn have exemplary records, we don't even know if they're eligible for the Mayor's Commendation.

    4% picked this

  5. Both Franklin and Penn have

    Unclear Impact

    We don't know whether Franklin's life-saving behavior and his going-beyond-expectations behavior ever overlapped. If I say, "On several occasions I have seen President Trump speak and on several occasions I have been to Trader Joes', that doesn't indicate whether I have ever seen President Trump speak at a Trader Joe's. Since we don't know if Franklin did more than expected while saving a life, we can't trigger the rule that says he should get the Mayor's Commendation.

    15% 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