PrepTest 123, Section 3, Question 18
Editorialist: In all cultures, it is almost universally(74 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the editorialist's(12 more words not shown)
- Autilizes a single(11 more words not shown)
- Bfails to consider(21 more words not shown)
- Cpresumes, without providing(15 more words not shown)
- Dtakes for granted(10 more words not shown)
- Etakes for granted(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Of course parents would want to protect a child they know has been falsely accused. I can accept the general duty to protect family members without much trouble.
I'm less sure about the next step: therefore, people would agree that the parents should hide the child from the police. Is hiding necessarily the best way to protect the child? Imagine a fair legal process that could clear the accusation. Hiding might create more trouble and expose the child to more harm later. The editorialist needs to do more than name the duty before settling on this way of carrying it out.
The final claim is that people are likely to accept that obstructing the police is sometimes morally right. If hiding the child counts as obstruction, I can see how the example would support that limited conclusion. But first we need a reason to accept the example's judgment about what the parents should do.
What we’re looking for
For the flaw question, my first thought is to question whether hiding actually protects the child from harm. Let's see what the choices give us. They may identify a different problem, but it should still expose an unsupported step between the general duty and the conclusion.
Working the answers
- A
One example can establish that something is sometimes right. If this really were an accepted case of morally justified obstruction, that would be enough to support the limited claim that some obstruction is morally justified. The argument doesn't conclude that obstructing the police is always right or usually right. The concern is whether the example works, not merely that there is only one kind of example.
- BCorrect
What if people also recognize a duty to cooperate with the police, and they think that duty takes priority here? Then they could accept the duty to protect family members while rejecting the decision to hide the child.
That's a different objection from my first thought about whether hiding would protect the child. It works, though: recognizing a duty doesn't establish that it wins every conflict with another duty. The editorialist never establishes how people rank those duties, so widespread agreement about protecting family doesn't establish widespread agreement about hiding a falsely accused child.
- C
The editorialist doesn't assume that allowing an innocent person's arrest assists justice. The argument favors hiding the person, so C doesn't describe a claim the argument relies on. A flaw answer has to identify something this author actually does, not merely offer another debatable idea about justice.
- D
The argument could allow a moral duty to obey the law and still treat the family duty as more important in this case. That would be different from assuming there is no moral duty to obey the law at all.
B identifies the narrower, defensible criticism: the argument overlooks the possibility that another duty takes priority. D goes too far by saying the author must deny that any duty to obey the law exists.
- E
The example describes parents who know the accusation is false. It doesn't merely describe parents who hope their child is innocent or trust the child's story. We accept the situation the example gives us. Even with the child's innocence established, B's problem remains: people may regard a competing duty as overriding the duty to protect a family member.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.