QUESTION TEXT: No occupation should be subject to a…
QUESTION TYPE: Principle – Justify
PRINCIPLE: Licensing requirement –> incompetence endangers human health or safety
contrapositive: no threat to health or safety –> no licensing requirement
ANALYSIS: Note that the principle gives a necessary condition for licensing. It doesn’t tell us when we should license. So any answer that says “and therefore we should license” is wrong.
That’s C, D and E. I try to avoid saying “same as C” for an explanation, but C, D and E are literally the same answer. They all mix up necessary and sufficient. If you try to analyze them on any other level, you’re missing the issue. It’s a trap to try to analyze content on these structural questions.
We can only conclude when something shouldn’t be licensed. (When there is no threat).
___________
- “Some of the duties” isn’t all of the duties. It’s possible (damned near certain, actually) that some other duties of police offers can endanger human safety if done incompetently.
- CORRECT. This matches the contrapositive above. No threat, no licensing.
- See the analysis above. The principle only lets us conclude “should not have licensing”. We don’t have a sufficient condition that tells us when we should license.
- Same as C.
- Same as C and D.
Recap: The question begins with “No occupation should be subject to a”. It is a Principle – Justify question. To practice more Principle – Justify questions, have a look at the LSAT Questions by Type page.
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions
Leave a Reply