Logical Reasoning

PT139 · S1 · Q18 Editorial: In order to encourage

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

Editorial: In order to encourage personal responsibility in adults, society should not restrict the performance of any of the actions of adults or interfere with the likely results except to prevent negative effects on others.

Principle

wouldn't be preventing society shouldn't negative effects on others → restrict actions of adults

Evaluate / Goal

Since we're looking to be inconsistent with a principle, we're basically trying to contradict it. Whenever we're contradicting a conditional / refuting a conditional, we're looking for a case where the Trigger happens but the Outcome doesn't happen.

In the case of this rule, we want a situation where "society isn't preventing negative effects on others (a victimless crime), and they ARE restricting the actions of adults.

18.

Which one of the following expresses a view that is inconsistent with the principle stated in the editorial?

  1. We should not prevent the

    Consistent

    In this situation, an action is being restricted. Are told that the action wouldn't have negative effects on others? The opposite. The action being forbidden is labeled as "disruptive to others", so it does have negative effects on others, hence this principle doesn't apply to the situation (we can't violate a principle that isn't applicable).

    8% picked this

  2. The scientist who invented this

    Consistent

    This prevents the action of "restricting profit to only the inventor". Are we told that this action has no negative effects on others? No, we're not. In fact, it's pretty common sensical that "keeping profits from others" has a negative effect on them (they don't get any money). This argument is using a Negated principle from the one we got. It is thinking: if an action (sharing profits) wouldn't harm others, then we should allow it Adhering to a negated-version of a Principle is not the same as contradicting a Principle. Given the principle: "If A, then B" Adhering to negated-version: X is not A. So, X is not B." Contradicting the principle: "X is A, but X is not B."

    11% picked this

  3. Even though public smoking may

    Consistent

    Since smoking does have negative effects (indirect harm) on others, this isn't what we're looking for.

    22% picked this

  4. Highway speed limits are a

    Consistent

    We're talking about speed limits restricting the action of speeding, and we're told that speeding can have negative effects on others (often injure or kill).

    8% picked this

  5. Correct

    It is not enough that

    Why this is right

    We're talking about banning the act of consuming a product that contains harmful substances (i.e. beer, cigarettes, cannabis). Does consuming this product have a negative effect on others? There's nothing in the text that says it does. The text emphasizes that harm would come to he/she who consumes the substance. We might be tempted to bring in our outside knowledge of negative effects caused by second hand smoking, alcoholism, mediocre stoner comedies, etc., but on the face of it, consuming a harmful substance only harms you. This text doesn't say otherwise. Usually, on LSAT, we don't want to assume that "if it wasn't mentioned, it isn't applicable". There may very well be negative effects on others that come from consuming harmful substances. But the other answers made the negative effects on others explicit, whereas this one says nothing. Thus, it's the closest we can come to violating the principle from the available answers.

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

    51% 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