PrepTest 114, Section 4, Question 1
Ms. Smith: I am upset that my son's(76 more words not shown)
If the principal is speaking(16 more words not shown)
- Amany children were(5 more words not shown)
- BMs. Smith's son(8 more words not shown)
- Cafter an accident(10 more words not shown)
- DMs. Smith's son(10 more words not shown)
- Elosing two days(6 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The school could let the other children go to recess. That's what makes me question the principal's comparison.
Ms. Smith objects to punishing her son for something he didn't do. The principal compares his situation to that of a driver stuck behind an accident despite having no part in causing it. I understand the similarity: someone else's actions can have unpleasant consequences for you. But a school choosing whom to punish isn't the same as traffic backing up behind a crash. The principal hasn't explained why the school should choose a punishment that reaches innocent children.
What we’re looking for
The question doesn't ask us to criticize that analogy, though. It asks what we can infer about the principal's beliefs, assuming the response is sincere. I don't have a precise answer to predict beyond the comparison the principal accepts. Let's separate what that comparison actually commits the principal to from additional reasons someone might give for the punishment.
Working the answers
- A
Some children were involved, but that doesn't tell us there were many. Two children could have thrown the raisins, just as a crash involving only two cars could hold up many uninvolved drivers. The analogy doesn't require a large group of culprits.
- BCorrect
The principal allows that Ms. Smith's son might not have thrown the raisins. The comparison is to people who suffer through a traffic jam even though they weren't involved in the accident. That would miss the point if the response were simply, 'Your son did it too.'
The principal is instead saying that someone can suffer the consequences of other people's actions. We don't have to accept that as a good justification for the punishment to see what it concedes about the son's possible innocence.
- C
The principal doesn't identify police activity as the cause of the delay. Crashed cars blocking the road could cause a jam, for example. Nothing in the comparison requires a general belief that police cause the resulting traffic jams.
- D
Ms. Smith says it was clear to everyone who threw the raisins. But this question asks what follows from the principal's response, not what the mother has claimed. The principal doesn't say that her son knew the culprits or withheld that information. The comparison can work even if he had no idea who was responsible, just as a delayed driver needn't know who caused the crash.
- E
Deterring future disruptions could be offered as a separate reason for a punishment. The principal doesn't offer it. The response says that uninvolved people sometimes suffer consequences; it makes no prediction about whether missing recess will prevent another incident. Don't supply a potentially helpful defense that the speaker never gives.
More Must Be True questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Must Be True questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.