PrepTest 148, Section 1, Question 21
No occupation should be subject to a licensing(23 more words not shown)
The principle stated above, if(14 more words not shown)
- ABecause some of(25 more words not shown)
- BBecause there are(27 more words not shown)
- CBecause hospital administrators(20 more words not shown)
- DBecause hair stylists(23 more words not shown)
- EBecause tattoo artists(22 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
If doing the job badly doesn't plausibly endanger people's health or safety, there should be no licensing requirement. That's what this rule lets us conclude. It doesn't tell us to license every occupation that could be dangerous. A plausible danger is something we need before requiring a license, not something that automatically makes a license the right policy. Since we're looking for an argument this principle supports, I'd look for an occupation with no such danger and a conclusion against requiring a license.
Working the answers
- A
Some safe duties don't establish that the occupation poses no plausible danger. Police officers could have routine paperwork that doesn't affect health or safety alongside other normal duties that do. The rule doesn't exclude licensing just because part of the job is harmless.
- BCorrect
This gives us the absence of danger that we need. If there are no realistic circumstances in which poor work by an interior designer endangers people, the required basis for licensing is missing. Under the principle, interior designers should therefore not face a licensing requirement.
- C
Decisions affecting health might give us a reason to consider licensing, but the rule doesn't say that every occupation affecting health should be licensed. Even if poor decisions pose a plausible threat, that meets a requirement for licensing without establishing the recommendation to license.
- D
Mishandling these substances might plausibly harm people. That keeps the rule from ruling out a licensing requirement. It doesn't establish that hair stylists should be licensed. The choice treats a needed condition as though it settles the decision.
- E
This has the same direction problem as D. A threat from unsanitary work could satisfy the health-and-safety requirement, but the principle doesn't say that satisfying it guarantees we should impose licensing. It tells us when licensing is ruled out, which is why B works.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.