LSAT 123 – Section 3 – Question 18

LSAT 123 - Section 3 - Question 18

June 2007

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

Target time: 1:28

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
PT123 S3 Q18	+LR	Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw Conditional Reasoning +CondR Rule-Application +RuleApp	A 31% 150 B 48% 152 C 6% 149 D 7% 148 E 7% 148	126 153 180	+Harder	144.044 +SubsectionEasier

Editorialist: In all cultures, it is almost universally accepted that one has a moral duty to prevent members of one’s family from being harmed. Thus, few would deny that if a person is known by the person’s parents to be falsely accused of a crime, it would be morally right for the parents to hide the accused from the police. Hence, it is also likely to be widely accepted that it is sometimes morally right to obstruct the police in their work.

utilizes a single type of example for the purpose of justifying a broad generalization

The editorialist uses an example to support a generalization, but it’s not an overly broad or flawed generalization. She gives one case where it may be considered morally right to obstruct police and then concludes that it’s sometimes considered morally right to obstruct police.

fails to consider the possibility that other moral principles would be widely recognized as overriding any obligation to protect a family member from harm

Perhaps most people would not agree that it’s sometimes morally right to obstruct police work because most people believe that some other moral principles, like the duty to follow the law, override the obligation to protect family members.

presumes, without providing justification, that allowing the police to arrest an innocent person assists rather than obstructs justice

The editorialist assumes that hiding a wrongfully convicted person obstructs rather than assists police work. She never actually makes any claims about obstructing justice, which may not be the same thing as obstructing police work.

takes for granted that there is no moral obligation to obey the law

The editorialist doesn’t assume that there is no obligation to obey the law. She just assumes that the moral duty to protect one’s family sometimes overrides any obligation to obey the law.

takes for granted that the parents mentioned in the example are not mistaken about their child’s innocence

The editorialist argues that most people would agree that it’s morally right for parents to hide a child who is known to the parents to be falsely accused of a crime from the police. Whether the child is actually innocent is irrelevant.

LSAT 123 – Section 3 – Question 18

LSAT 123 - Section 3 - Question 18

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

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 123 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Leave a Reply Cancel