PrepTest 112, Section 3, Question 9
I agree that Hogan's actions resulted in grievous(83 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(8 more words not shown)
- AHogan should not(9 more words not shown)
- BThe robber who(18 more words not shown)
- CThe actions of(9 more words not shown)
- DHogan thought that(16 more words not shown)
- EThe actions of(11 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The author is conceding a lot. Hogan seriously hurt Winters, understood what he was doing, and knew its effects. The author even accepts that intentionally causing such harm is reprehensible when other things are equal. So where is the defense going?
The mistaken identity gives us context. Hogan thought Winters was the robber terrorizing the apartment buildings. That could make us judge the action differently from an attack with no such belief behind it. It doesn't automatically excuse injuring the wrong person. I'd still question whether Hogan acted carefully or was justified in taking action on that belief.
What we’re looking for
My first takeaway is that the author wants the context to matter to our judgment. The final emphasis on Hogan's belief attracts attention, but the main-conclusion question requires us to separate the reason being emphasized from the judgment the author wants us to accept.
Working the answers
- A
This goes too far. The author concedes Hogan's role in causing the injury and asks for a less complete condemnation, not a declaration that he bears no responsibility. Context can affect how harshly we judge an action without erasing responsibility for it.
- B
The author doesn't transfer responsibility to the real robber or compare the robber's responsibility with Hogan's. We could invent an argument that the robber helped create the circumstances, but this author doesn't make it. The point concerns how to judge Hogan's actions in light of his mistaken belief.
- CCorrect
Look at the request embedded in the final sentence: the author asks us to agree that Hogan's actions should not be wholly condemned. 'Not completely blameworthy' expresses that limited judgment.
The author isn't denying the injury or Hogan's awareness. Those are concessions that make the defense more limited. The mistaken belief is then offered as a reason to withhold complete condemnation. Once we distinguish that reason from the requested judgment, C gives us the main conclusion.
- D
This is the fact the author emphasizes, which makes it tempting. But why emphasize it? To persuade us not to wholly condemn the actions. The mistaken belief supports that judgment; it isn't the judgment itself. The phrase introducing the request for agreement tells us what the author is trying to establish.
- E
This is a concession the author makes before presenting the defense. The author is willing to accept the general judgment that intentionally causing such effects is reprehensible, other things being equal. The final move asks us to consider a particular circumstance that qualifies how we judge this case. E stops before that main point.
More Role/Main Point questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Role/Main Point questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.