Logical Reasoning

PT23 · S2 · Q24 One of the great difficulties in

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

One of the great difficulties in establishing animal rights based merely on the fact that animals are living things concerns scope.

Statements

It's hard to establish animal rights based only on the fact that animals are "living things", because how you define "living things" will make a big difference.

If you define it too broadly, you'll end up assigning rights to a head of lettuce (living organisms that we wouldn't normally consider animals).

If you define it too narrowly, you'll end up denying rights to organisms that are, at least biologically, considered animals.

Evaluate

If we're scanning for Conditional / Causal / Quantitative / Pivot type stuff, we may notice that the 2nd and 3rd sentences are conditionals.

If defined broadly → bound to bestow rights on non-animals

If defined narrowly → apt to refuse rights to things that are animals

Are those two triggers exhaustive?

Meaning, are we forced to fire one or the other? Is any definition of "living things" going to be broad or narrow?

Hmm, it's seems pretty close, since broad and narrow are pretty close to logical opposites. If it said "too broadly" / "too narrowly", then there's plenty of room in the middle for "just right". But since this is just "broadly vs. narrowly", it sounds like we're probably firing one or the other trigger.

Goal

It's hard to know what to predict here, but the big themes are - how to define "living things" has a causal impact on making it hard to establish animal rights - it sounds like we're going to either include too many or leave some out.

24.

If the statements above are true, which one of the following can be most reasonably inferred from them?

  1. Not all animals should be

    Too Strong

    Too Strong: shouldn't be given rights Opposite, if anything Whenever we see "Not all A's are B", we will translate that into "Some A's are not-B". Was our author saying that some animals should not be given rights? I can't find a spot where she's saying that. She seems to think that some non-animals, like plants, should not be given rights, since she finds it problematic if we define living things too broadly. And she seems to think that all animals should have rights, since she seems concerned that we would leave some animals out were we to define living things narrowly.

    3% picked this

  2. One cannot bestow rights on

    Too Strong: cannot

    If this answer said, "one cannot bestow rights on all animals w/o also bestowing rights on at least some plants", it would sound pretty good. A broad definition of living things will lead to some plants getting rights. A narrow definition will lead to some animals not getting rights. But that narrow definition is proof that you "can bestow rights on animals w/o bestowing rights on some plants". So the existence of the "narrow definition" option seems to contradict this answer. If we were reading the answer as implying "bestowing rights on (all) animals", this answer would still be wrong. The first sentence is saying that we encounter this too broad / too narrow problem when we attempt to establish animal rights based merely on the fact that animals are living things. If we don't base animal rights merely on that fact, then it might well be possible that we can bestow rights to all animals without accidentally including plants.

    10% picked this

  3. The problem of delineating the

    Too Strong: every

    This paragraph is only about one specific attempt/strategy to establish animal rights. If we are trying to establish them merely on the fact that animals are living things, then we run into the problem of delineating the boundary of the set of living things. But no one ever said that "all attempts" to establish animal rights involve doing so based solely on the fact that animals are living things.

    17% picked this

  4. Correct

    Successful attempts to establish rights

    Why this is right

    What a mouthful. This does tie in all three ideas, not that the correct answer has to (but when it does, you often know you're doing "good Inference work"). If we establish based broad = include plants solely on observation ? or that animals = living narrow = omit animals The subject noun of this sentence is talking about a situation in which we "successfully established rights for all animals". That means that this 2nd "narrow" option is off the table, in this conditional. If we're establishing rights based solely on "animals = living things", then we'll include plants. If we establish based broad = include plants solely on observation ? or that animals = living narrow = omit animals Our only other option, by contrapositive, is to avoid establishing animal rights on that basis: if we're NOT ? not establishing animal rights including plants solely b/c animals = living If the original rule were A ? B or C This answer is saying, "in a situation that avoids C, we will either have to do B or have to avoid doing A".

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

    64% picked this

  5. The fact that animals are

    Too Strong: irrelevant

    The author hasn't established that being a living thing is irrelevant to establishing animal rights. She's shown that although it may be necessary, it's not sufficient. If you try to establish rights based merely on the "living things" definition, then you'll get a crappy outcome either way you slice it. But she wouldn't say let's not even include "living things" as one of the criteria that's relevant to whether an animal should have rights. Her paragraph supports a conclusion that we should include other criteria in addition to "living things", in order to avoid overincluding or underincluding things that should have rights.

    8% 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