LSAT 115 – Section 2 – Question 04

LSAT 115 - Section 2 - Question 04

December 2002

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 0:55

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
PT115 S2 Q04
+LR
Method of reasoning or descriptive +Method
Value Judgment +ValJudg
Analogy +An
A
3%
155
B
0%
155
C
96%
162
D
1%
152
E
1%
156
120
121
134
 +Easiest 148.811 +SubsectionMedium

Marie: I gave the cashier at my local convenience store a 10-dollar bill to pay for my purchase, and he mistakenly gave me change for a 20-dollar bill. I kept the extra 10 dollars. Since I did not trick, threaten, or physically force the cashier into giving me the extra money, it was not morally wrong for me to keep it.

Julia: Nonsense. If you mistakenly hand me your coat, thinking it is my coat, then even though I did not get the coat by means of any deception, threats, or violence against you, I am not morally entitled to keep it for myself.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Julia concludes Marie’s claim that it is not morally wrong to keep an extra 10 dollars is nonsense. To support her claim, Julia similarly argues that she would not be morally entitled to keep Marie’s coat for herself if Marie were to mistakenly hand the coat to her.

Describe Method of Reasoning
Julia counters the position held by Marie. She does this by presenting an analogous argument with a conclusion opposite to the conclusion drawn by Marie.

A
It strongly questions the application of Marie’s principle to the case that Marie described, while accepting that principle.
Julia does not accept the principle Marie describes. In fact, Julia explicitly rejects this principle by concluding she would not be morally entitled to keep Marie’s coat.
B
It offers an additional reason to accept Marie’s conclusion.
Julia does not accept Marie’s conclusion. In fact, she explicitly rejects Marie’s conclusion as nonsense.
C
It challenges Marie’s conclusion by claiming that the proper conclusion to draw in a relevantly similar situation would be the opposite of Marie’s.
The relevantly similar situation is Julia’s analogy of keeping Marie’s coat. In this analogy, Julia reaches a conclusion opposite of Marie’s conclusion.
D
It uses Marie’s criterion as a means of solving a moral problem Julia herself faces.
Julia does not present a problem she currently faces. We cannot assume her analogy of keeping Marie’s coat is an actual moral problem she currently faces.
E
It proposes a radically different principle by which Marie’s action might be judged, but reserves judgment as to whether Marie acted rightly.
Julia does not propose her own principle. She only addresses the principle Marie proposes and explicitly rejects it. We cannot assume that just because Julia rejects a principle, she is proposing her own.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 115 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply