LSAT 112 – Section 3 – Question 09

LSAT 112 - Section 3 - Question 09

December 2001

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:13

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
PT112 S3 Q09
+LR
Main conclusion or main point +MC
Value Judgment +ValJudg
A
3%
153
B
1%
152
C
88%
160
D
6%
151
E
2%
148
126
137
148
 +Easier 144.548 +SubsectionEasier

I agree that Hogan’s actions resulted in grievous injury to Winters. And I do not deny that Hogan fully realized the nature of his actions and the effects that they would have. Indeed, I would not disagree if you pointed out that intentionally causing such effects is reprehensible, other things being equal. But in asking you to concur with me that Hogan’s actions not be wholly condemned I emphasize again that Hogan mistakenly believed Winters to be the robber who had been terrorizing west-side apartment buildings for the past several months.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The author asks us to agree that Hogan’s actions shouldn’t be condemned entirely, even though Hogan knowingly and intentionally injured Winters. What could support letting Hogan partially off the hook? Well, Hogan thought Winters was a robber, which the author thinks should lessen the degree to which we blame Hogan.

Identify Conclusion
The author’s conclusion is their opinion of Hogan’s blameworthiness: “Hogan’s actions [should] not be wholly condemned.”

A
Hogan should not be considered responsible for the injuries sustained by Winters.
This is stronger than what the argument claims. The author wants us to refrain from “wholly condemning” Hogan, but that doesn’t mean not holding him responsible at all.
B
The robber who had been terrorizing west-side apartment buildings should be considered to be as responsible for Winters’s injuries as Hogan.
The author never discusses whether the robber should be held responsible, let alone how the responsibility should be divided. This is just beyond the scope of the argument.
C
The actions of Hogan that seriously injured Winters are not completely blameworthy.
This accurately restates the conclusion. When asking us to agree that Hogan “not be fully condemned,” the author is trying to convince us that Hogan was not completely blameworthy. The argument then offers support for this claim, meaning it’s the conclusion.
D
Hogan thought that Winters was the person who had been terrorizing west-side apartment buildings for the last few months.
This is stated in the argument but no support is offered, so it can’t be a conclusion. Instead, this statement is a premise to support the conclusion that Hogan wasn’t entirely to blame.
E
The actions of Hogan that seriously injured Winters were reprehensible, other things being equal.
This can be inferred from the argument, but it’s more of a contextual claim to explain why the author needs to convince us that Hogan shouldn’t be fully condemned. This idea is what the author argues against, or at least tries to qualify.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 112 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply