PrepTest 110, Section 2, Question 6
The notion that one might be justified in(27 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(11 more words not shown)
- AA representative of(30 more words not shown)
- BOne cannot intend(20 more words not shown)
- COne cannot live(27 more words not shown)
- DDoctors cannot perform(16 more words not shown)
- EOne ought not(28 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Is the author condemning the behavior, or objecting to calling it irrational?
Imagine someone making a scene during a protest. At first, I might read the opening as saying that a worthy cause can't justify that behavior. But the next sentence makes a different point. The author says that if the action is justified, it counts as rational. The objection is to describing the same action as both justified and irrational, not necessarily to the action itself.
That makes the abstract language easier to follow. The author rejects a combination of descriptions because, on the author's understanding, one rules out the other. Calling the action justified means we can't also categorize it as irrational.
What we’re looking for
For the parallel question, I want an argument about meanings that fit together or exclude each other. An answer saying an action is harmful or unwise would miss the point. We need something like, “You cannot describe it that way, because that description conflicts with what the other word means.”
Working the answers
- A
This gives a consequence of law enforcement officials committing crimes: they would be less effective at preventing crime. It doesn't say that being a law enforcement official makes committing a crime impossible by definition. The argument is about why officials ought not to act that way, not about two incompatible descriptions.
- BCorrect
Intending to spill the water conflicts with calling the spill accidental. The explanation makes the incompatibility explicit: an accidental spill is not intentional.
That matches the original's use of definitions. Just as a justified action would be rational rather than irrational, an intentional spill would not be accidental. In each case, the author rejects a proposed combination because one description excludes the other.
- C
The first sentence sounds promising because it rules out combining a good life with unhappiness. But look at the reason given. It concerns what the neighbors would see and conclude. It doesn't explain the incompatibility by defining a good life in a way that excludes unhappiness. The original's support comes from the meanings of the terms, not from an observer's judgment.
- D
The stated obstacle is that doctors cannot evaluate their own symptoms objectively and would therefore practice poor medicine. That is a claim about their ability to do the task well. It isn't a claim that the terms “doctor” and “self-diagnosis” are incompatible by definition. Poor performance and an incoherent description are different concerns.
- E
This recommends against keeping two animals together because doing so puts one at the other's disposal and is said to be unethical. The reasoning concerns a consequence and an ethical judgment. It doesn't say that having a cat and a goldfish is a contradiction in the meanings of the words.
More Parallel Reasoning questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Reasoning questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.