Logical Reasoning

PT137 · S3 · Q18 Activities that pose risks

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

Activities that pose risks to life are acceptable if and only if each person who bears the risks either gains some net benefit that cannot be had without such risks, or bears the risks voluntarily.

Principle

Life-threatening risk ⇿ gains special benefit acceptable or bears risk voluntarily

Evaluation

Because of the "if and only if", we get a bi-conditional, which is an either/or idea.

If you gain a special benefit you couldn't get otherwise or bear the risk voluntarily, then it's okay to do something that is potentially life-threatening.

But if you're not getting a special benefit and you're not bearing that risk voluntarily, then it's not acceptable to do something that risky.

Goal

As we read each answer, we can first peek at whether we're trying to hear that the risks are unacceptable, in which case we need to establish two things (not a special benefit and not bearing that risk voluntarily), or whether the risks are acceptable, in which case we only need to establish one of two things (it's for a special benefit or the risk is borne voluntarily).

18.

Which one of the following judgments most closely conforms to the principle above?

  1. A door-to-door salesperson declines to

    Not Life-Threatening

    Although this establishes that the risk is being taken voluntarily, it's not clear that keeping his older car is a "life-threatening activity", so the principle doesn't seem to apply.

    10% picked this

  2. A smoker subjects people to

    Doesn't Establish Either Criteria

    To say that the risks to the bystanders are acceptable, we need to know that they're getting a special benefit they can only get by inhaling secondhand smoke, or that they've freely chosen to breathe secondhand smoke. Neither of those is established. Not to mention, breathing secondhand smoke outside doesn't seem like it even qualifies as "life-threatening risk", so what are we doing here?

    1% picked this

  3. Correct

    A motorcyclist rides without a

    Why this is right

    "The risk of fatal injury thus incurred" establishes that this is a life-threatening risk. And it is established that this risk is freely taken by the motorcyclist. Hence, we're allowed by this principle to call this risk acceptable.

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

    79% picked this

  4. Motor vehicles are allowed to

    Not Life-Threatening Doesn't Meet Either Criteria

    The resulting health risks of breathing in car pollution are not established as life-threatening risks. Also, we don't establish that these risks are taken in order to obtain a special benefit or that they're freely accepted. It just says the risk is acceptable because we all share the benefit.

    10% picked this

  5. A nation requires all citizens

    Trap

    This establishes that spending two years in national service is not a life-threatening risk, so it's immediately irrelevant to the principle we're being tested on. It also doesn't meet either of the criteria: done to obtain a special benefit or freely taken risk.

    0% 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