QUESTION TYPE: Parallel Reasoning
CONCLUSION: It’s impossible to have to keep all promises and also to have to answer every question honestly.
REASONING: It’s possible for the following to happen:
- For you to be sworn to silence, and
- Someone asks you a question that, if answered truthfully, would require you to break that oath of silence.
ANALYSIS: This is a solid argument. The two obligations have an inherent contradiction, and so we can’t be obliged to keep all vows and answer all questions honestly.
To mirror this, you need to look for a situation where there’s a definite contradiction between two obligations.
- CORRECT. This matches. It’s impossible to say whatever you want and and to be civil.
You might have thought you could have the right to free expression, but simply not exercise it. But that doesn’t quite match the answer. @[email protected] means having no obstacle to. So, if you want to say something but refrain from doing so out of civility, you are @[email protected] by civility. An unencumbered right is a stronger form than simply having a right.
- Unlike the stimulus, this is a bad argument. The politicians still have a choice. They could opt not to be popular, and therefore not be politicians.
In any case, this is also wrong because it doesn’t show a contradiction between two ideas. Instead it merely tries to show that dishonesty is necessary.
- This doesn’t show a contradiction between two ideas. Instead, it merely shows there are risks to each of two options.
- This is a bad argument. It plays on two different meanings of the word “will force”. In the second sentence, it’s implied that will force means “If brought before a court, the court will force a corporation to pay debts”.
This answer does not mean that courts run around forcing debt obligations to be paid in every instance. Courts only look at cases brought before them. So there’s a third option: the creditors might not have brought the case to court.
- This is a good argument. But it doesn’t show a contradiction between two ideas. This might have been correct had it said “it’s impossible to both extend our business hours and keep labor costs the same”.
I don’t think that would have done it, but it would have been closer to being right.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly