PrepTest 133, Section 3, Question 22
Principle: A police officer is eligible for a(57 more words not shown)
From which one of the(13 more words not shown)
- AIn saving a(31 more words not shown)
- BBoth Franklin and(34 more words not shown)
- CNeither Franklin nor(53 more words not shown)
- DAt least once(32 more words not shown)
- EBoth Franklin and(53 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Being eligible for an award isn't the same as having earned it under the rule.
Start with eligibility. An exemplary record makes an officer eligible, and “but not otherwise” tells us that an officer without that record isn't eligible. So the record gives us a clear way to rule someone out.
Next comes a way an eligible officer should receive the award: the officer performed an act this year that both saved a life and went beyond what could reasonably be expected. The same act must do both. The rule doesn't say this is the only possible reason an eligible officer should receive the award.
What we’re looking for
We need facts that establish two conclusions, not just one. For Franklin, look for the exemplary record plus that qualifying act. For Penn, the clean way to establish that Penn should not receive the award is to show the required record is missing. Merely showing that Penn didn't earn it by Franklin's route would leave other possibilities open.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Both officers went beyond what could reasonably be expected while saving a child this year. Franklin also has the exemplary record, so Franklin is eligible and performed the act that triggers the award recommendation. Penn lacks the record, so Penn is not eligible despite the bravery of the act. A establishes both sides of the conclusion.
- B
Franklin qualifies: exemplary record, a life saved this year, and action beyond reasonable expectations. Penn also has an exemplary record, so Penn is eligible. Penn's act doesn't meet the extra standard, but that only means this particular award rule doesn't tell us to give Penn the award.
It does not tell us to deny it. Compare “Everyone who does this deserves an award” with “Only people who do this deserve an award.” We have the first kind of rule here. B supports the Franklin half while leaving the Penn half unsettled.
- C
Neither officer has an exemplary record, so neither is eligible. Franklin's exceptional rescue can't overcome the missing eligibility requirement. This cannot establish the requested conclusion that Franklin should receive the commendation.
- D
Franklin performed the right kind of act, but we aren't told whether Franklin has an exemplary record and is eligible. For Penn, not saving a life doesn't automatically disqualify an otherwise eligible officer. So D leaves a gap on both sides: Franklin's record is missing, and Penn's failure to meet one award condition isn't proof that Penn should not receive it.
- E
Franklin's life-saving acts and above-and-beyond acts aren't necessarily the same acts. Perhaps Franklin saved lives while carrying out ordinary duties, and separately went beyond expectations helping people in situations where no life was at stake. E would be true, but the combined condition would still not be met.
Penn's record is exemplary here, so Penn is eligible. As in B, failing to establish the particular award-winning act doesn't establish that Penn must be denied the award. E neither clearly gives Franklin the combined act nor gives us a basis to rule Penn out.
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.