Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Hard

PT141 S3 P4 Q27 Explanation

Regulating Voluntary Risk

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

TopicsAuthor's AttitudeLaw

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.

Passage

It is generally believed that while in some cases government should intervene to protect people from risk—by imposing air safety standards, for example—in other cases, such as mountain climbing, the onus should be on the individual to protect himself or herself. In the eyes of the public at large, the demarcation between antecedent judgment of some other kind. They are thus of little utility in guiding policy decisions.

First, it is not easy to determine when a risk is voluntarily incurred. Although voluntariness may be entirely absent in the case of an unforeseeable collision with an asteroid, with most environmental, occupational, and other social risks, it is not an all-or-nothing matter, but rather one of degree. Risks incurred by airline part of a complex interaction, not the decision to fly, but the accident when it occurs.

Second, people often characterize risks as "voluntary” when they do not approve of the purpose for which people run the risks. It is unlikely that people would want to pour enormous taxpayer resources into lowering the risks associated with skydiving, even if the ratio of dollars spent to lives saved were quite policy should be guided by a better understanding of the factors that underlie judgments about voluntariness.

In general, the government should attempt to save as many lives as it can, subject to the limited public and private resources devoted to risk reduction. Departures from this principle should be justified not by invoking the allegedly voluntary or involuntary nature of a particular considerations for which notions of voluntariness serve as proxies.

What this question is testing

Author's Attitude

Your task

Pin down exactly what the question asks about the passage — a detail, the author's view, the structure, or the main point — before looking at the choices.

Common trap

Answers that restate a true detail from the passage but don't answer the specific question being asked.

Winning move

Anticipate the answer in your own words from the passage, then find the choice that matches that prediction.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
27.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the author’s attitude in

Answer choices

  1. Too Strong: rampant misunderstanding6% picked this

    chagrin at the rampant misunderstanding of the relative risks associated with

    Although the author points out inconsistencies in lay people's notions of voluntary / involuntary, he never says that lay people have a gross misunderstanding of the risks involved in various activities. This answer is talking about stuff like asking someone, "What do you think is the risk of dying in a terrorist attack? What about dying in a tornado?" and that person giving terribly incorrect answers.

  2. Out of Scope: excessive regulation8% picked this

    concern that policy guided mainly by laypeople's emphasis on the voluntariness of risk would lead

    The author does seem concerned that policy should not be guided by laypeople's emphasis on voluntariness, but it's not because the author is worried that being guided by laypeople would lead to too much regulation. The author never discusses the potential for too much regulation.

  3. Correct63% picked this

    skepticism about the reliability of laypeople's intuitions as a general guide to deciding

    Why this is right

    This is like (B) without the broken final part of (B). We can support this answer with the final sentence of the 1st paragraph. They [laypeople's judgments about whether a risk was undertaken voluntarily] are thus of little utility in guiding policy decision.

    Skill tested: Author's Attitude · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

  4. Too Strong: sole criterion17% picked this

    conviction that the sole criterion that can justify government intervention to reduce risk is the

    The author, in the final paragraph, is saying that he wants "saving lives" to be the default #1 goal, but he never goes to the extreme of saying it should be the only thing ever that justifies government intervention. His final sentence talks about "departure from this principle (of saving maximum lives)", indicating that he recognizes that sometimes we'll justify government intervention for other reasons.

  5. Out of Scope: experts' biases6% picked this

    eagerness to persuade the reader that policy experts' analysis of risk is distorted

    This author mainly seems eager to persuade the reader that laypeople's analysis of risk is distorted by subtle biases. He never extends this critique to experts' analysis of risk.

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