PT72.S3.Q17 - Meade: People who are injured as a result of

glaezzo

Hello,

Here is my analysis for question 17 in section 3 for prep test 72. This is a weaken question; therefore, I wanted to weaken the connection between the premises and the conclusion.
Argument Analysis:

Premises:

Individuals who get injured due to unsafe actions not only cause injury to themselves but also can put financial and emotional burdens on others who they are close with.
Conclusion:
The Government is vindicated in making actions that are considered risky to one’s health illegal, in order to guard other people’s interests.

Prephrase:

Just because something that could be injurious to one individual and that brings pain to their family is not grounds for outlawing it. Think about it this way, just because trampolines can cause you harm and make your family pay your hospital bills doesn’t mean that this is grounds to ban using them.

Answer Choices:

A. This supports the argument because it further justifies why it would feasible to implement the law. The reason is due to the fact that it shows how putting a burden on the people you have close ties to constitutes harm to oneself.
B. This doesn’t weaken because just because we have an obligation to not injure ourselves doesn’t mean that we won’t injure ourselves. For example, one may have an obligation to not eat their sister’s last piece of chocolate cake; however, is that obligation strong enough to prevent us from eating it? Probably not.
C. This strengthens because it meets the necessary condition of posing a financial burden to the family.
D. This weakens it entirely because entirely wipes out the evidence that the argument provided for the conclusion. If the evidence is not sufficient than the conclusion is not entirely justified to be true.
E. Again, just because you have an obligation doesn’t mean that it will guarantee that people won’t do it. The person could easily say, well this law will just affirm this obligation.

Honestly, I wish I hadn’t gotten this question wrong. I had originally picked B because I assumed that because one has an obligation to not do something that they won’t do it. But, how many obligations have we had that we have broken? Conversely, D shows that the evidence that the person gave does not completely bolster the argument for instituting the law.

Admin note: edited title
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-72-section-3-question-17/