LSAT 106 – Section 2 – Question 24

LSAT 106 - Section 2 - Question 24

June 1999

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

Target time: 0:43

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
PT106 S2 Q24	+LR +Exp	Strengthen +Streng Rule-Application +RuleApp Value Judgment +ValJudg	A 0% 137 B 96% 165 C 1% 160 D 1% 154 E 1% 155	133 140 148	+Easier	147.566 +SubsectionMedium

Marianne is a professional chess player who hums audibly while playing her matches, thereby distracting her opponents. When ordered by chess officials to cease humming or else be disqualified from professional chess, Marianne protested the order. She argued that since she was unaware of her humming, her humming was involuntary and that therefore she should not be held responsible for it.

Summarize Argument

Marianne argues she shouldn’t be disqualified for humming during her chess matches. Why? Because she didn’t know she was humming, meaning it was involuntary.

Notable Assumptions

Marianne assumes she can’t be held responsible for any involuntary humming. She also assumes there’s no way she could both be unaware of her humming and have chosen to do it.

Chess players who hum audibly while playing their matches should not protest if their opponents also hum.

This is irrelevant. There’s no indication Marianne’s opponents also hum, and this principle only applies if they do.

Of a player’s actions, only those that are voluntary should be used as justification for disqualifying that player from professional chess.

This offers support for Marianne’s argument. It bolsters her assumption that she could only be punished for humming if she had chosen to hum.

A person should be held responsible for those involuntary actions that serve that person’s interests.

This weakens Marianne’s argument. Since her humming advances her interests and is involuntary, this principle advances the opposite conclusion—that she should, in fact, be held responsible.

Types of behavior that are not considered voluntary in everyday circumstances should be considered voluntary if they occur in the context of a professional chess match.

This weakens Marianne’s argument. Since the humming occurs during a professional chess match, this principle suggests it should be treated as voluntary, destroying Marianne’s basis for arguing it should be allowed.

Chess players should be disqualified from professional chess matches if they regularly attempt to distract their opponents.

This could only weaken Marianne’s argument. If it’s determined her humming is an attempt to distract, this principle would lead to Marianne’s disqualification. Otherwise, it doesn’t apply to her situation.

LSAT 106 – Section 2 – Question 24

LSAT 106 - Section 2 - Question 24

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

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 106 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Leave a Reply Cancel