LSAT 105 | Section 1 | Logical Reasoning: Q11

LR Question 11 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Although the concept of free will is essential to …

QUESTION TYPE: Role in Argument

CONCLUSION: The role of free will isn’t applied the same in determining moral responsibility across different situations.

REASONING: We hold criminals morally responsible for the damage they cause when they act out of free will. But we do not hold someone responsible for a heart attack while driving, even if their freely chosen bad diet caused it.

ANALYSIS: The example of the heart attack is used to support the conclusion. The conclusion is that the role of free will in determining responsibility differs across situations. The criminals and the heart attack are two examples used to show that both involve free will, yet we only hold one responsible.

___________

1. A subsidiary claim is a secondary conclusion that supports the main conclusion. But that’s not the case here. The heart attack is an example, not a conclusion.
2. The author never says anything about what we should do.
3. Again, there’s no claim on what we should do.
4. Same as B and C. The stimulus is just describing something that may seem like an inconsistency in how we currently operate. It makes no claims about what should or shouldn’t happen.
5. CORRECT. The diet example is contrasted with the criminals example to support that free will is assessed differently depending on the situation.