Logical Reasoning

PT134 · S3 · Q20 One should not play a practical joke

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

One should not play a practical joke on someone if it shows contempt for that person or if one believes it might bring significant harm to that person.

Principles

Practical joke shows contempt for the target shouldn't play or → the practical joke Joker thinks joke might significantly harm target

Evaluation / Goal

This rule can only prove that you shouldn't play a practical joke, so we'll quickly get rid of any answer choices that try to conclude you should play one.

Since the principle has "or" in the trigger, we only need one of the criterion to be me to safely conclude that someone shouldn't play (have played) a practical joke.

20.

The principle stated above, if valid, most helps to justify the reasoning in which one of the following arguments?

  1. I should not have played

    Not Harming Target of Joke

    We come closer to establishing the joker thought there would be significant harm, but the rule says the joker has to be worried there will be significant harm to the person on whom the practical joke is being played. What we're told in this answer doesn't clearly indicate that the joker was worried significant harm would come to the target of the joke.

    5% picked this

  2. I have no reason to

    Bad Right Side Match

    This rule only lets you say you shouldn't play the joke. It has no power to tell you whether you should do it, or whether it wouldn't be wrong.

    14% picked this

  3. Correct

    Because of the circumstances, it

    Why this is right

    This well establishes the 2nd criterion: the author believes that the joke could bring significant harm to the target of the joke.

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

    71% picked this

  4. It would have been wrong

    Contempt for Target vs. for Someone

    This is similar to the trickiness of (A). The first criterion is about whether the joke shows contempt for the target. This answer only establishes that the joke shows contempt for someone.

    6% picked this

  5. Someone was harmed as a

    Trap

    Someone harmed vs. Target harmed Belief vs. Result The criterion is about whether the joker believes (ahead of time) that the joke might significantly harm the target. This answer's argument is retroactive regret, not deciding against doing the joke in the first place. We don't know if, at the time of playing the joke, the joker believed it would harm the target. And we don't even know if the joke did harm the target, just that it harmed someone.

    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.

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