LSAT 127 – Section 1 – Question 19

LSAT 127 - Section 1 - Question 19

December 2003

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

Target time: 1:16

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
PT127 S1 Q19	+LR +Exp	Necessary assumption +NA Conditional Reasoning +CondR Link Assumption +LinkA	A 19% 159 B 6% 156 C 20% 159 D 54% 166 E 1% 159	155 162 169	+Hardest	147.168 +SubsectionMedium

Editorialist: Some people argue that we have an obligation not to cut down trees. However, there can be no obligation to an entity unless that entity has a corresponding right. So if we have an obligation toward trees, then trees have rights. But trees are not the sort of things that can have rights. Therefore, we have no obligation not to cut down trees.

Summary

The author concludes that we don’t have an obligation not to cut down trees. Why?
Because if an entity doesn’t have a corresponding right not to be cut down, then there is no obligation to that entity. And we know trees aren’t the kind of thing have have rights.

Notable Assumptions

We know from the premises that trees don’t have rights; so we don’t have any obligation toward trees not to cut them down. But does that prove we have no obligation at all not to cut down trees?

The flaw in the argument is that we might have an obligation to entities besides trees not to cut trees down. For example, maybe we’re obligated to our future children not to cut down trees.

The author must assume that we do not owe an obligation to other entities not to cut down trees.

If an entity has a right to certain treatment, we have an obligation to treat it that way.

Not necessary, because we already know that trees don’t have rights. So whatever must be true about things that do have rights doesn’t relate to the author’s reasoning.

Any entity that has rights also has obligations.

Not necessary, because we already know that trees don’t have rights. So whatever must be true about things that do have rights doesn’t relate to the author’s reasoning.

Only conscious entities are the sort of things that can have rights.

The concept of “conscious entities” has nothing to do with the reasoning of the argument. So (C) isn’t necessary.

Avoiding cutting down trees is not an obligation owed to some entity other than trees.

Necessary, because if it were not true — if avoiding cutting down trees IS an obligation owed to some entity other than trees — then we actually may still be obligated not to cut down trees, even if that obligation isn’t owed to the tree itself.

One does not always have the right to cut down the trees on one’s own property.

The argument concerns whether we have an obligation not to cut down trees. Whether we have a right to cut down trees is a separate issue.

LSAT 127 – Section 1 – Question 19

LSAT 127 - Section 1 - Question 19

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 127 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Leave a Reply Cancel