PrepTest 114, Section 4, Question 23
If an act of civil disobedience—willfully breaking a(45 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(9 more words not shown)
- AKeisha's protest against(50 more words not shown)
- BJanice's protest against(42 more words not shown)
- CIn organizing an(41 more words not shown)
- DMaria's deliberate violation(51 more words not shown)
- EIn organizing a(42 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why is the person breaking the law? The principle makes the reason matter. Someone protesting solely for personal gain, with no concern for others, doesn't qualify. Someone whose conscience requires the protest does.
Imagine a protester refusing to follow a law merely because it inconveniences them. Compare that with a protester who believes they are morally required to oppose the law. Those are the two situations the passage gives us rules for. It doesn't tell us the answer for every possible motive in between.
That leaves an obvious trap: “Her conscience didn't require it, so she wasn't justified.” We haven't been given that rule. Conscience provides a reason for justification; the passage doesn't say it is the only possible reason. For an unjustified act, we'd need the separate condition about self-interest alone and no concern for others.
What we’re looking for
The question asks us to apply the principles. I'll check what motive each example actually gives us, then whether the judgment follows. A motive that sounds admirable isn't automatically the specific motive the rule requires.
Working the answers
- A
Concern for the people of another country doesn't establish that Keisha's conscience required her protest. It keeps her outside the purely selfish situation condemned by the first rule, but that alone doesn't establish justification under the second. We can't turn “this rule doesn't condemn her” into “this rule justifies her.”
- B
This uses the trap we anticipated. Janice's conscience didn't require her to protest, but that doesn't prove her act unjustified. Her stated motive is helping the mine workers, not acting solely for herself without concern for others. Neither rule supports B's negative judgment.
- C
Georgette's concern for her fellow inmates could be admirable, but the principle doesn't say concern for others automatically justifies an act. We need to know that her conscience required it to apply the positive rule. C supplies a different fact and jumps to the same judgment.
- DCorrect
Maria's conscience required her to violate the law on behalf of all publishers. That meets the condition for justified civil disobedience.
Don't let her ownership of a publishing company distract you. The negative rule concerns self-interest alone, with no concern for others. A protest that also benefits Maria isn't disqualified merely because she benefits. Here, we're explicitly given the moral requirement and the concern for other publishers that make the positive rule apply.
- E
Louise's conscience didn't require the parade, but that fact alone doesn't make it unjustified. We would need to establish that she acted solely out of self-interest and without concern for others to use the negative rule. Willfully breaking a law identifies civil disobedience; it doesn't settle whether this instance is justified.
More Parallel Reasoning questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Reasoning questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.