LSAT 106 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q24

LR Question 24 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Marianne is a professional chess player who hums…

QUESTION TYPE: Principle – Strengthen

CONCLUSION: Mary argued she shouldn’t be forced to stop humming.

REASONING: Mary wasn’t aware she was humming: it was involuntary.

ANALYSIS: The case against Mary seems strong. We need a principle that tells us not to punish involuntary acts.

___________

1. We have no evidence that Mary’s opponents hum, so this would still leave them free to complain.
2. CORRECT. This does it. Since Mary’s actions aren’t voluntary, the league can’t threaten to disqualify her because of her humming.
3. We’re trying to hold Mary not responsible. Also, we don’t know if humming serves her interests.
4. This doesn’t help Mary. She’s arguing she isn’t responsible because her actions are involuntary. This would support the idea that her humming is voluntary.
5. This tells us when to disqualify a player. It doesn’t help us figure out when not to disqualify a player. In any case, Mary isn’t trying to distract anyone. Her humming is involuntary.

Recap: The question begins with “Marianne is a professional chess player who hums”. It is a Principle Justify question. Learn more about LSAT Principle Justify questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.