LSAT 134 – Section 1 – Question 23

LSAT 134 - Section 1 - Question 23

October 2011

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:22

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT134 S1 Q23
+LR
Sufficient assumption +SA
Conditional Reasoning +CondR
Link Assumption +LinkA
Value Judgment +ValJudg
A
6%
158
B
26%
162
C
19%
162
D
43%
169
E
6%
160
160
167
175
 +Hardest 147.067 +SubsectionMedium

Ethicist: Marital vows often contain the promise to love “until death do us part.” If “love” here refers to a feeling, then this promise makes no sense, for feelings are not within one’s control, and a promise to do something not within one’s control makes no sense. Thus, no one—including those making marital vows—should take “love” in this context to be referring to feelings.

Summary
Marital vows often contain a certain promise that uses the word “love.” The author concludes that “love” in this context should not be interpreted as referring to feelings. This is because the promise would make no sense if “love” referred to feelings.

Missing Connection
The conclusion asserts that we should not interpret the word “love” as referring to feelings in the context of a certain promise. But the premises do not establish when one should not interpret a word in a particular way. The premises only establish that interpreting “love” as referring to feelings makes no sense. So to get from the premise to the conclusion, what’s missing is the principle that if an interretation makes no sense, one should not use that interpretation.

A
None of our feelings are within our control.
(A) doesn’t tell us when we should not interpret a word in a particular way. So it cannot establish that we should not interpret “love” as referring to feelings in the context of the promise.
B
People should not make promises to do something that is not within their control.
(B) concerns whether a promise should be made. But the argument concerns whether a certain word in a promise should be interpreted in a particular way. How a word should be interpreted has nothing to do with whether a promise should be made.
C
“Love” can legitimately be taken to refer to something other than feelings.
(C) establishes that “love” can refer to other things besides feelings. But it doesn’t guarantee that we SHOULD NOT interpret “love” as referring to something else besides feelings in the context of the promise.
D
Promises should not be interpreted in such a way that they make no sense.
We know from the premises that interpreting “love” as referring to feelings in the context of the promise makes no sense. (D) establishes that if an interpretation of a promise makes no sense, then we should not use that interpretation. So (D), combined with the premises, proves we should not interpret “love” as referring to feelings in the context of the promise.
E
Promises that cannot be kept do not make any sense.
(E) doesn’t tell us when we should not interpret a word in a particular way. So it cannot establish that we should not interpret “love” as referring to feelings in the context of the promise.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 134 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply