LR Drill Set 2, Question 10
Throwing a small piece of paper out a(34 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(5 more words not shown)
- AAny action that(7 more words not shown)
- BIf one's action(15 more words not shown)
- COne's action is(15 more words not shown)
- DAn action is(12 more words not shown)
- EOne's action is(6 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
One scrap of paper may do almost no harm. A road full of scraps is another matter.
The argument judges the individual act by asking what would happen if many people did it. That is why it can accept that one person's litter causes no appreciable harm and still call the action wrong. Once the behavior becomes widespread, the combined effect can be substantial.
I can follow that way of judging the act, but it is a choice of principle. Someone else might insist on assessing only the harm this particular act actually causes. To defend the argument, we need the broader rule: an action can be wrong because of the appreciable harm that would result if many others acted the same way.
Notice the “if.” We are imagining widespread behavior, not claiming that throwing one scrap out the window will actually persuade everyone else to litter.
What we’re looking for
The principle question should preserve that distinction between the individual act and the hypothetical combined result.
Working the answers
- A
The passage does not compare the individual act's total harm with its total good. It explicitly says the small act causes no appreciable harm, then appeals to what would happen if many people acted similarly. A uses a different test and doesn't provide the link the argument relies on.
- B
This requires one action to lead many other people to imitate it. We have no evidence of that influence. People might never see this driver throw the paper, yet the argument's hypothetical about many people littering could still hold. What would happen if others did the same is different from actually causing them to do it.
- CCorrect
If many others acting the same way would cause appreciable harm, this rule calls the individual's action wrong. That connects the exact reason the argument gives with its conclusion. The first scrap need not cause appreciable harm by itself; the rule looks to the harm from widespread similar behavior.
- D
This imposes a requirement for calling an act wrong: it must cause many others each to cause appreciable harm. Neither element is established. We aren't told this person's action causes anyone else to act, and the premise concerns harm from many small acts together, not appreciable harm from each act individually.
- E
This would condemn an action that itself causes appreciable harm. Our passage expressly says the small act does not do that. The argument needs a rule that reaches an individually minor act because of its result when repeated by many people. E stops at the individual harm and leaves that connection out.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.