LSAT 153 | Section 4 | Reading Comprehension: Q21

RC Question 21 Explanation

DISCUSSION: The second sentence of passage B says that there are many restrictions on judicial power, but all of these restrictions depend on judges being honest.

They element here is that there are many different restrictions on judicial power. And each of them have honesty as a necessary condition. So, we have:

• Constitutional limitations ➞ requires honesty
• statute limitations ➞ requires honesty
• precedent limitations ➞ requires honesty

So we have three different limitations on judges, all of which require honesty. To parallel this, we need an answer where there are multiple separate conditions which each require the same necessary condition. Note that this is an unusual structure for an answer, I’ve never seen it before.

Three wrong answers just have a single conditional statement: A, D and E. We needed multiple statements. So in a way, the main wrong answers make the same error. (As for B, it doesn’t even have a conditional statement).

Example of another parallel argument:

The LSAT requires many things: Intuition, Stamina, intelligence. And all of these depend on adequate sleep. So in a sense, sleep is an essential prerequisite of all LSAT success.

This is true, by the way. I talk to a lot of students trying to improve on 4-6 hours sleep. Guaranteed failure. If this is you, close your books and go to bed and don’t come back till you’re sleeping 7-8 hours. You will not make it on a sleep deficit.

Anyway, as a structure, we get:

• Intuition ➞ sleep
• Stamina ➞ sleep
• Intelligence ➞ sleep

Conclusion: All such key LSAT skills require sleep.

___________

1. I thought this answer was plausible. But unlike the correct answer this doesn’t list multiple conditions. Instead it just gives us a single conditional:
    
   Jury verdicts trusted ➞ selected from representative population
    
   One other way to eliminate this is to note that it has a similar topic to the passage. That is often a sign of a trap. It doesn’t 100% mean an answer is wrong, but it means you should read the other answers.
2. This answer shows that artists are mistaken. That theme wasn’t in the passage. This would have been right had the sentence in the passage said something like “Judges complain about the constraints of honesty. But actually honesty has produced some of the greatest judicial decisions ever.”
    
   Also, the section we are trying to parallel has conditional statements. “Often” and “many” are not conditional indicators. So this answers fails the most basic test of paralleling the stimulus.

3. CORRECT. This matches the same odd structure of the sentence from the passage. We have multiple requires for support of a scientific theory. And each of these requirements also has the requirement of accurate data. E.g.

   • Relevant ➞ requires accurate data
   • sufficiency ➞ requires accurate data

   If you got this wrong, don’t worry. This is one of the hardest RC questions I’ve seen in a while. And I’ve never seen one with this structure. Not only is it like a logical reasoning question, but it’s like an extremely hard logical reasoning question. It reminds me of how LSAC is introducing unique structures in logic games to throw people off.

4. The similar topic (“deception”) should warn you that this answer is a trap. This shares none of the structure of the stimulus. The stimulus had a chain that looked like this: “Restrain A ➞ Condition D”, “Restraint B ➞ Condition D”. Multiple constraints, all with the same necessary condition.
    
   Here, there is no restraint. The answer instead says that deceit is allowed as long as it doesn’t interfere with the game. So you could make one statement: “Deceit allowed ➞ doesn’t interfere”.
5. Like D, this doesn’t match the structure. In fact, there isn’t even a conditional statement in this answer! “Even if” is not a conditional indicator. With no necessary conditions, it’s impossible for anything in this answer to match the passage.
    
   “Even if” means something is not a factor, and the only other sentence is a “many” statement.
    
   I guess you could infer a single conditional statement: “Doctor prescribes medication ➞ obligation to discuss side effects”.
    
   But the passage did more than have a single conditional statement, and the passage’s conditional statements were clear. You didn’t have to hunt around for them. The distinct feature of the passage was that it had three separate sufficient conditions all with the same necessary condition.
    
   The mention of a professional obligation of honesty shows this answer is just trying to distract you with a similar topic.