PrepTest 106, Section 2, Question 24
Marianne is a professional chess player who hums(53 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(12 more words not shown)
- AChess players who(14 more words not shown)
- BOf a player's(18 more words not shown)
- CA person should(12 more words not shown)
- DTypes of behavior(23 more words not shown)
- EChess players should(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
I can believe Marianne isn't humming on purpose. That doesn't make it easier for her opponents to concentrate. They still have to play through the noise, and I can see why the officials want it stopped.
Marianne says she wasn't aware of the humming, so it was involuntary, so she shouldn't be held responsible. That last step needs support. Imagine bringing a child to someone's home and having the child break a valuable dish. You didn't choose to break it, but we might still expect you to take responsibility and replace it. The example doesn't settle Marianne's case; it shows why a lack of deliberate choice needn't settle responsibility.
What we’re looking for
Now the question puts us on Marianne's side. We need a principle supporting her argument against the order. The connection we just questioned tells us what would help: involuntary conduct shouldn't be a basis for holding a player responsible. If the rules protect a player from disqualification for an action like this, Marianne's objection becomes stronger.
Working the answers
- A
This tells humming players not to complain about other humming players. It doesn't tell officials whether to hold Marianne responsible or disqualify her. There is no allegation that Marianne is protesting an opponent's humming, so a rule against that kind of double standard misses her argument.
- BCorrect
Only voluntary actions can justify disqualification. Under this principle, if Marianne's humming is involuntary, the officials cannot use it as the reason to disqualify her. That's the connection we needed between how the behavior occurs and whether this penalty is justified.
We don't need a special label for the wording. Ask which actions the rule allows officials to count: voluntary ones. Marianne says hers doesn't belong in that group. Accepting her description, B supports her protest.
- C
This points against Marianne. Her humming distracts opponents, which could serve her interests. C says involuntary conduct that benefits a person can still make that person responsible. It connects involuntary behavior and responsibility in the opposite direction from the one her argument needs.
- D
This would remove the protection Marianne is trying to claim. Even if her behavior would be called involuntary elsewhere, the rule would treat it as voluntary in a professional chess match. It doesn't support excusing her because she had no voluntary control.
- E
An attempt to distract suggests a deliberate effort. Marianne claims she wasn't even aware she was humming, and this rule doesn't tell us how to handle that situation. A rule allowing disqualification for deliberate distraction also doesn't rule out disqualification on other grounds. It supplies no exemption for Marianne.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.