PrepTest 151, Section 2, Question 4
Food company engineer: I stand by my decision(53 more words not shown)
The engineer's reasoning most closely(8 more words not shown)
- AOne is justified(16 more words not shown)
- BOne should always(14 more words not shown)
- COne is justified(22 more words not shown)
- DOne should never(18 more words not shown)
- EOne has the(15 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Being willing to take the risk doesn't show there is no risk.
The dumping sounds concerning, especially once we hear there is evidence of possible health problems. I might initially imagine a defense based on avoiding an even worse alternative: perhaps leaving the chemicals somewhere else would put them into the food supply. But the engineer doesn't give us that argument. The defense is personal willingness to keep fishing and acceptance of other companies doing the same dumping.
Even the fishing doesn't establish safety. What if the engineer fishes upstream of the dumping site? What if the fish aren't eaten? More generally, someone can be unconcerned about a risk and still be wrong about it. We should believe that the engineer is willing to continue, without treating that confidence as proof of harmlessness.
What we’re looking for
The question asks which principle matches the reasoning, so we need to describe the engineer's defense rather than endorse it. The answer should connect willingness to face the consequences with being justified in performing the act, including when others perform it too.
Working the answers
- A
We aren't told that other manufacturers plan to dump chemicals. The engineer says there would be no objection if they did. Willingness to accept someone else's hypothetical conduct isn't evidence of their actual plans, and the engineer doesn't justify the act by saying other people intend to do it.
- B
No comparison of total benefits is offered. The engineer doesn't show that dumping helps more people than another option would. My initial thought about avoiding a worse alternative could have developed into a different argument, but it isn't the defense the engineer actually makes.
- CCorrect
The engineer presents willingness to keep fishing as willingness to face the consequences of the dumping, and also accepts others doing the same thing. That fits the proposed rule: personal willingness to submit to those consequences justifies the act. Matching the principle doesn't require us to accept it as a good moral rule or conclude the chemicals are safe.
- D
This requires a full analysis of effects on others before acting. The engineer offers personal willingness to continue fishing, not evidence that every possible impact has been analyzed. The act has already been ordered, and nothing in the defense invokes D's prior-analysis requirement.
- E
This requires that no one else be harmed. The engineer's lack of concern doesn't establish that condition, especially given the evidence of possible health problems. A defense based on accepting the consequences is different from a defense based on there being no harm to anyone else.
More Strategy of Argument questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strategy of Argument questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.