Logical Reasoning

PT139 · S1 · Q1 Police chief: This department's

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

Police chief: This department's officers are, of course, prohibited from drinking on the job.

Given that ...

Cops are usually prohibited from drinking on the job.

Why is it that ...

Cops are allowed to drink in moderation during work if they're working undercover in nightclubs?

Evaluate / Goal

This one seems to play off common sense, so we can probably predict the answer.

Why are cops allowed to drink if they're working undercover in a nightclub? Because they're supposed to be blending in with all the normal people there, most of whom are drinking.

Let's look for that, or any other reason why cops working undercover in a nightclub are allowed to have a couple drinks.

1.

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to justify the exception to the police department's rule stated above?

  1. Only very experienced police officers

    Unclear Impact

    This provides a distinction about undercover work in nightclubs -- it's going to be a very experienced cop. Okay, does that explain why we let them drink? Is there a common sense connection like, "If you're a very experienced cop, you're allowed to drink in moderation?" No, even very experienced cops should presumably be as sober as possible.

    2% picked this

  2. Correct

    Many nightclub patrons would suspect

    Why this is right

    This explains why undercover cops are allowed to drink in the nightclub. They don't want to blow their cover by being the only square who isn't drinking. Other patrons at the nightclub would be like, "Hey, Eddie, why are you drinking water? What are you, some sort of Narc?"

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

    93% picked this

  3. Over the last several years,

    No Impact

    For this to work, we'd have to think "because the police department has invested a bunch in undercover nightclub operations, they let the undercover cops do a little drinking on the job". There's no common sense connection there.

    1% picked this

  4. Most police officers believe that

    Too Weak / No Distinction

    This helps somewhat, because it makes us see why letting undercover cops drink a little bit on the job probably isn't too bad. Most cops don't think it'll cause significant problems. But that leaves plenty of room for most cops to think it still causes some tiny problems. And it leaves room for up to 49% of cops to think that drinking on the job causes significant problems. So it's not a super powerful endorsement. But more importantly, it has nothing to do with "justifying the exception". We're tasked with solving why undercover work at nightclubs is different from the usual prohibition of drinking on the job. This answer doesn't say, "Unlike for other settings, when it comes to nightclubs, most cops don't think drinking on the job would cause significant problems". So this answer does nothing to explain why we treat nightclub drinking differently from other on-the-job drinking.

    4% picked this

  5. For the most part, the

    No Impact

    Whether the public is aware or not aware that undercover cops can drink at the club, doesn't explain why cops are allowed to drink at the club.

    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