PrepTest 106, Section 2, Question 25
Marianne is a professional chess player who hums(53 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(9 more words not shown)
- AThe officials of(17 more words not shown)
- BMany of the(12 more words not shown)
- CNot all of(12 more words not shown)
- DA person who(15 more words not shown)
- ENot all of(10 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Imagine a humming sound beside you while you're trying to take the LSAT. Whether the person means to distract you wouldn't make the sound disappear. That's how I understand the opponents' complaint: Marianne's humming makes it harder to concentrate.
Her defense is that she didn't know she was doing it. I'm willing to accept that. But why should being unaware excuse the disruption? Something done accidentally can still cause a problem we expect the person to address.
What we’re looking for
We're asked to weaken her argument against the order. I'd look for a reason she should be held responsible despite the lack of intent. Our objection is to the move from “I didn't choose to do it” to “I shouldn't have to answer for it.” We don't have to show that she secretly meant to annoy anyone.
Working the answers
- A
Outside the matches? That's not where this order applies. The officials could have no say over Marianne humming in her hotel room and still be entitled to regulate behavior during a match. A doesn't challenge her argument about what happens while she plays.
- B
Which customs? This doesn't identify humming as one of them, much less establish what responsibility professional players have for distracting an opponent. A general difference between amateur and professional play leaves the dispute unresolved.
- C
This says a person can be aware of an involuntary action. That doesn't show Marianne was aware of hers, and it doesn't show that her humming was voluntary. More importantly, even accepting that it was involuntary, we still need to address whether she should be responsible for it.
The answer rearranges the discussion of awareness and control without supplying that connection. It could be true that people sometimes notice an action they can't help, while Marianne still makes exactly the same defense about her own humming.
- DCorrect
This is more specific than my prediction: Marianne can learn to notice and control the humming. The fact that it began involuntarily doesn't mean she has no way to stop it. That makes her lack of initial awareness a weaker reason to resist the officials' order.
We're not declaring that every involuntary action deserves a penalty. We're learning that this behavior can be brought under control. If she can readily learn to stop the distraction, the claim that she shouldn't be held responsible because it is involuntary loses force.
- E
Some opponents might tune out the humming. Others are still distracted, as the passage tells us. Marianne's behavior doesn't have to bother every opponent to create the problem behind the order. And this fact doesn't strengthen the case for holding her responsible; if anything, it makes the disruption sound less widespread.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.