PrepTest 136, Section 2, Question 7
Mike: Tom did not tell me that I(33 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(10 more words not shown)
- AUsing the possessions(9 more words not shown)
- BGenerally one should(14 more words not shown)
- CIf people have(19 more words not shown)
- DIt is permissible(18 more words not shown)
- EUsing another person's(11 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Tom used someone else's things without asking. Does that make it okay to use Tom's things without asking?
Mike's lack of explicit permission doesn't settle everything by itself. Perhaps the two share equipment for a project and Tom would welcome the help. But that isn't Mike's reason. Mike points to Tom using Mary's bicycle without Mary's permission.
Tom may have behaved badly. Repeating that behavior toward Tom doesn't automatically make it acceptable. To support Mike, we need a rule connecting how Tom treats other people with how we're allowed to treat Tom. My prediction is something like: it is permissible to treat someone the way that person has treated others.
What we’re looking for
Keep the people straight. Tom used Mary's bike. Mike wants to use Tom's computer. Mike isn't the person whose property Tom used.
Working the answers
- A
Something can fail to count as theft and still be wrong. For example, a rule against borrowing without asking might apply even when the borrower plans to return the item. Mike needs permission in the moral sense, not merely a way to avoid the label “theft.” A doesn't provide that permission.
- B
Telling the truth isn't the behavior in dispute. Mike isn't defending a lie about using the computer. He's defending the use itself based on what Tom did to someone else.
- C
This would help if Tom had used Mike's property without permission. But Tom used Mary's bicycle. The rule permits a response by the person whose property was used, and we haven't been told that Mike meets that condition. Switching Mary for Mike changes the argument.
- DCorrect
Tom used Mary's property without asking, so this principle permits Mike to treat Tom similarly by using Tom's property without asking. It supplies the missing moral rule. We don't have to endorse the principle ourselves; the question asks whether, if valid, it would justify Mike's reasoning.
- E
This tells us when using someone's property is wrong: when it harms that person. It neither establishes whether Tom would be harmed nor states that use without harm is always permissible. A rule identifying one reason something is wrong doesn't automatically justify everything outside that situation.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.