PrepTest 118, Section 3, Question 3
John: It was wrong of you to blame(73 more words not shown)
The principle that Michiko invokes,(10 more words not shown)
- AColleen was responsible(38 more words not shown)
- BColleen was responsible(33 more words not shown)
- CColleen was responsible(31 more words not shown)
- DColleen was responsible(29 more words not shown)
- EColleen was not(23 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
John might not be responsible for his eyesight getting worse. He still chose to drive knowing that he couldn't see well.
That's the distinction Michiko makes. The criticism isn't “You should have chosen better vision.” It's “You knew driving with that vision was risky, and you drove anyway.” The inability to control one condition doesn't automatically remove responsibility for a voluntary action taken with knowledge of the danger.
What we’re looking for
We're asked to apply Michiko's principle. Follow the stated rule: someone voluntarily takes an action, knows it risks a certain consequence, and then bears responsibility for that consequence. My broad prediction is an example of being held responsible for a choice despite the circumstances. But we don't need another driver or another physical limitation. Check the person's choice and what the person knew about the risk.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Colleen chose another trip to the Eiffel Tower even though she knew that doing so might leave too little time to reach the airport. The trip was voluntary, and missing the flight was a risk she recognized. Holding her responsible for missing it therefore fits Michiko's principle.
She doesn't need to have wanted to miss the flight. John didn't need to want an accident either. The principle concerns knowingly taking the risk, not intending the bad result.
- B
Colleen deliberately repeated the comment, but the stated misunderstanding is something she did not know would occur. We're not given the needed awareness that repeating the comment risked offending her brother in this way. A voluntary action plus an unfortunate result isn't enough by itself to meet Michiko's rule.
- C
The car was stolen two weeks ago. The manual was published last week. Failing to follow advice that had not yet been published doesn't establish that Colleen knowingly undertook the relevant risk before the theft.
The choice also describes precautions she didn't take, rather than identifying a voluntary action taken with knowledge of its risk. We shouldn't assume she knew the police advice earlier or supply some other reason she should be blamed. The stated facts don't give us the application we need.
- D
Her brother slammed the door. Colleen's knowledge that loud noises can frighten cats doesn't make his action an action she voluntarily undertook. D has the awareness of a risk attached to the wrong person's conduct.
- E
The principle tells us when someone is responsible; it doesn't give a rule absolving someone who tries to prevent a bad result. Colleen's efforts might be relevant to a broader judgment, but they don't establish this conclusion under the particular rule Michiko states.
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.