Logical Reasoning

PT155 · S1 · Q16 Park ranger: It is unfair

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

Park ranger: It is unfair to cite people for fishing in the newly restricted areas.

Conclusion (should = opinion)

We should do no more than issue a simple warning against fishing in the newly restricted areas until we've made a real effort to publicize the new restrictions.

Intermediate Conclusion

It's unfair to cite people for fishing in the newly restricted areas.

Intermediate Conclusion

They probably are unaware of the changes in regulations.

Evidence (since)

Even many of us who are supposed to enforce these changes have not yet been informed of them.

Evaluate

The city recently changed the rules on where you can fish. They haven't made a real effort to publicize the new restrictions yet, so the general public probably doesn't know where they're no longer allowed to fish. In fact, even some of the city's enforcement officials haven't yet been informed of all the changes to the rules.

So the author thinks it would be crazy to walk up to a dude fishing at 7am in the morning and write him a ticket for fishing in an illegal area.

FISHERMAN: What? I didn't know you can't fish in this area. I've fished here for years.

OFFICER: Yeah, we recently changed the rules, and this is one of the newly restricted areas.

FISHERMAN: Well, how was I supposed to know that? Have you publicized these new restrictions? What other areas are newly restricted?

OFFICER: No, we haven't made a real effort to publicize them yet, and actually I haven't yet been informed about all the new changes so I'm not sure what other areas are newly restricted.

FISHERMAN: Well, then, again how was I supposed to know? Can't you just let me off with a warning, instead of a citation?

Goal

We want a principle that will side with the fisherman. Something that sounds like,

16.

Which one of the following is a principle that, if valid, most helps to justify the park ranger's argument?

  1. Correct

    People should not be cited

    Why this is right

    Yes, this sounds like something our fisherman would say. Since he wasn't aware of the new rules, he shouldn't be cited for violations. The author was sympathetic to this view. As a conditional, this answer would look like this: If X violates a law of → X should not which X is unaware be cited The trigger matches the evidence, since the author says that people fishing in the newly restricted areas "probably are unaware of the changes". And the outcome supports the conclusion, "we should do no more than a simple warning = we should not issue a citation".

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

    77% picked this

  2. Regulations regarding park use should

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This would help us support a conclusion saying, "Therefore, we should make a real effort to publicize the new restrictions". But the conclusion we need to support is, "So long as we haven't publicized the new restrictions, we should do no more than issue simple warnings."

    7% picked this

  3. The public should not be

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This sounds like something the author does believe. We could probably call this a Necessary Assumption. But it's not the strongest support for the conclusion, of the available answers, because it has nothing to do with whether we issue warnings vs. citations. This answer would help support a conclusion that's says, "Thus, we shouldn't expect the public to know X". This answer feels like it supports the Intermediate Conclusion of "They probably are unaware of the changes in regulations". It doesn't support language like "we should do no more than issue simple warnings". And the trigger is actually weird, if we look at it conditionally: any law enforcement → shouldn't expect officer doesn't know X public to know X

    16% picked this

  4. People who fish in a

    Unrelated to Goal

    This is a principle that would allow to conclude something about how the public should behave. We're trying to find a principle that tells us something about how park rangers should behave (should / shouldn't they issue simple warnings or citations to people who break the new rules).

    0% picked this

  5. People who are caught in

    Weak Conclusion Match

    One big red flag here is that the trigger to this rule doesn't hit on any of the premise ideas, "the public is probably unaware / many enforcement agents haven't been informed yet". It just says, If X is caught → X should be allowed violating a law to explain why they think the law doesn't apply to them The conclusion is about whether to cite the person violating the law or whether to do no more than issue a simple warning. It has nothing to do with whether or not the violator is given a chance to explain why they are exempt from the law. In this story, violators aren't actually arguing the law doesn't apply to them. They're just saying to the park ranger, "Whoa -- I didn't know that new restriction applied to me. I don't think that a citation is a fair punishment for a rule I had no way of knowing I was breaking."

    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