LSAT 105 – Section 1 – Question 11

LSAT 105 - Section 1 - Question 11

February 1999

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:24

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT105 S1 Q11
+LR
Argument part +AP
A
4%
160
B
3%
161
C
4%
158
D
1%
151
E
89%
166
130
141
153
 +Easier 147.243 +SubsectionMedium

Although the concept of free will is essential to that of moral responsibility, its role in determining responsibility is not the same in all situations. We hold criminals morally responsible for the damage they cause, assuming that they freely chose their activities. But we do not hold someone who has a heart attack while driving morally responsible for the damage caused, if any, even when we have good reason to believe that the heart attack could have been prevented by eating different foods and that one’s choice of diet is made freely.

Summarize Argument
The author claims that free will does not always have the same role in determining moral responsibility. The argument proceeds with two examples which support this claim by demonstrating situations where free will leads to different assessments of responsibility. First: the free choice to commit crimes leads to responsibility. Second: the free choice to eat a diet that causes a heart attack does not lead to responsibility for the consequences of having a heart attack while driving.

Identify Argument Part
The claim that a choice of diet can affect whether or not one has a heart attack helps to support the conclusion by demonstrating a situation where responsibility and free will have a different relationship from that associated with crime.

A
It is a subsidiary conclusion of the argument.
The claim about diet affecting heart attacks is not supported by anything else in the argument, so cannot be a subsidiary conclusion.
B
It is used to show that we should hold someone morally responsible for damages caused by having a heart attack while driving.
As with (C), the author never makes a claim about when we should or shouldn’t hold someone responsible. The argument is just trying to show that we assess responsibility differently in different situations.
C
It is cited as evidence that our concept of moral responsibility should be the same in all situations.
As with (B), the author makes no statement about how we should assess responsibility. The point of the argument is just to demonstrate that our assessment can differ based on factors other than free will.
D
It is used to disprove the claim that we should not hold criminals morally responsible for damages.
The author isn’t trying to disprove anything, and the argument never references a claim that we shouldn’t hold criminals morally responsible.
E
It is used in support of the conclusion of the argument.
This accurately describes what the claim about diet and heart attacks does in the argument: it’s a premise. It supports the conclusion as part of one of two conflicting examples.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 105 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply