PrepTest 119, Section 4, Question 3
Having lived through extraordinary childhood circumstances, Robin has(44 more words not shown)
From the statements above, which(8 more words not shown)
- ARobin committed no(6 more words not shown)
- BRobin did something(4 more words not shown)
- CMoral ignorance is(8 more words not shown)
- DRobin's childhood could(10 more words not shown)
- ERobin could now(11 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Robin knows the law, but doesn't understand the moral difference between right and wrong. Keep those two kinds of knowledge separate.
The passage then gives us an act that was both illegal and morally wrong. Robin knew it was illegal but didn't recognize that it was morally wrong. Not recognizing a fact doesn't make the fact disappear. The act can be morally wrong even though Robin doesn't understand that.
What we’re looking for
We're asked what follows from these statements. There isn't an argument here for us to attack; we're working with a description and looking for something it establishes. It already tells us that Robin did something morally wrong. We don't need to decide whether Robin deserves punishment or whether better moral understanding is possible.
Working the answers
- A
This says Robin committed no offense that was legally forbidden. But the passage expressly describes an offense Robin knew was illegal. A contradicts the information we're supposed to use.
- BCorrect
Robin did something morally wrong. The passage calls the act morally wrong while explaining that Robin failed to recognize that fact. B reports what the passage says about the act, without adding a claim about Robin's understanding or responsibility.
- C
We aren't told how the law treats moral ignorance. Knowing that Robin understood the act was illegal doesn't establish a rule about what courts will excuse, much less a rule covering every case. That legal question is outside the description.
- D
Perhaps better moral training was possible, but we don't know. The childhood circumstances were extraordinary, and nothing tells us what options were available within them. We can't move from 'Robin didn't acquire this understanding' to 'those circumstances allowed better training.' The latter might be true without being established here.
- E
Robin might be able to learn the distinction now. Or the lack of understanding might persist. The passage describes Robin's current limitation but tells us nothing about whether it can be changed. Don't choose a hopeful possibility when B is directly supported.
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.