Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Medium

PT135 S1 Q6 Explanation

Evan: I am a vegetarian because

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

Evan: I am a vegetarian because I believe it is immoral to inflict pain on animals to obtain food. Some vegetarians who share this moral reason nonetheless consume some seafood, on the grounds that it is not known whether certain sea creatures can experience pleasure or pain. But if it is truly of the doubt to sea animals and refrain from eating seafood.

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
6.

Which one of the following most closely conforms to the principle illustrated by Evan's criticism of vegetarians

Answer choices

  1. Correct79% picked this

    I do not know if I have repaid Farah the money she lent me for a movie ticket. She says that she does not

    Why this is right

    This establishes a potential for wronging someone -- we might be stiffing Farah on the money she lent us. It establishes that we're not sure whether we're wronging someone -- Farah can't remember if she's been paid back. And it concludes that we should act on the safe side of making sure we're not wronging that someone -- let's just pay her the money, so we can be sure we're not wronging her. We can match up those structural features with the original: Establishes a potential for wronging someone -- we might be inflicting pain on sea creatures when we kill them for food Establishes that we're not sure whether we're wronging someone -- it's not known whether certain sea creatures can experience pleasure / pain Concludes that we should act on the safe side of making sure we're not wronging that someone -- let's just refrain from eating seafood.

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

  2. Bad Conclusion Match8% picked this

    It is uncertain whether all owners of the defective vehicles know that their vehicles are being recalled by the manufacturer. Thus, we should expect

    This establishes a potential for wronging someone — some people might be be driving a defective vehicle unknowingly. It establishes that we're not sure whether we're wronging someone — "it is uncertain whether they know". But it fails to conclude that we should act on the safe side of making sure we're not wronging that someone — instead of saying "so we should just try contacting all the vehicle owners again to make sure they know", it says some mismatching conclusion that is more like "so some of the vehicles the car company recalled have not been returned by the vehicle owners". That would be like if the original argument said, "Thus, we should expect that some of sea creatures we eat do / do not feel pain".

  3. Bad Premise/Conclusion Match7% picked this

    I am opposed to using incentives such as reduced taxes to attract businesses to our region. These incentives would attract businesses interested only in

    It's hard to match any part of this up with the argument. The principle in this argument is something like, "Let's not do a certain action, because even if it would bring a short term gain, it will probably make us more shaky in the long run."

  4. Bad Premise/Conclusion Match4% picked this

    Updating our computer security system could lead to new contracts. The present system has no problems, but we could benefit from emphasizing a state-of-the-art

    It's hard to match any part of this up with the argument. The principle in this argument is something like, "Let's do action X. Things are presently fine, but X might make them better, and if not, we can do things to offset the cost of X."

  5. Bad Premise/Conclusion Match2% picked this

    Isabel Allende lived through the tragic events of her country's recent history; no doubt her novels have been inspired by her memories of those

    It's hard to match any part of this up with the argument. The principle in this argument is something like, "Since a certain person's art reflects traits that are a mismatch for the artists' experiences, the artist has not been tainted by her experiences."

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