LSAT 106 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q12

LR Question 12 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: After several attempts to distract his young parrot…

QUESTION TYPE: Principle – Strengthen

ARGUMENTS: George hit his bird, to stop it from chewing on furniture. George shouldn’t have hit the bird because chewing on furniture wouldn’t have hurt the bird.

Carla hit the puppy, and now it won’t go out into the street alone (where it could get hurt.) Carla was right to hit the puppy.

ANALYSIS: Both situations involve pain. Painful discipline seems to be justified if it prevents harm to the animal, but otherwise it isn’t.

___________

1. Carla used her hand, so this doesn’t work.
2. CORRECT. This justifies Carla because she prevented her puppy from hurting itself. This also shows that George was wrong because his bird wasn’t going to hurt itself.
3. Carla didn’t try any alternative strategies, yet we’re trying to say she was justified.
4. Carla disciplined an immature puppy, yet we conclude it was a good idea.
5. Carla’s puppy only ran out into the street once, as far as we know. That’s not a persistent behavioral problem. Yet Carla was justified.

Recap: The question begins with “After several attempts to distract his young parrot”. It is a Principle Justify question. Learn more about LSAT Principle Justify questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.