PT60.S3.Q18 - activities that pose risks to life

PeterPeter Free Trial Member
edited January 2016 in Logical Reasoning 90 karma
http://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-60-section-3-question-18/

I had a lot of trouble with this question picking between A/C (reasons outlined below) and am hoping someone could point out the error in my logic.

The stimulus states activities that pose a risk are acceptable if and only if they satisfy any of two conditions
1) the net benefit outweigh the risk
2) the person bearing the risk does so voluntarily

Starting with the answer I chose first
(C) A motorcyclist rides without a helmet and the RISK is acceptable because he's doing so voluntarily. At first glance this seemed to definitely fit as an application of the principle stated in the stimulus. The motorcyclist is choosing to ride without a helmet. However, the answer states the risk is acceptable while the principle is talking about whether the activity that poses this risk is acceptable. One might argue that an acceptable activity necessarily implies the risk is acceptable. However, here all we're told is the necessary condition is satisfied and we can't conclude anything about the sufficient condition.

Therefore, I changed my answer to (A) though I had a lot of reservations:
(A) a salesperson voluntarily and therefore this activity is acceptable. This didn't seem to fit the stimulus too well. How do we know the risk the salesperson, by not replacing his old car with a new one with new safety features, is imposing a risk on his life? I felt (C) was blatantly wrong (stating that the risk is acceptable rather than the activity) while (A) seemed a little less wrong since it didn't seem too large a leap of faith to assume his old car may pose a risk on his life. After all, isn't driving always posing a risk on your life?

Between these two, I ended up picking (A) which happened to be the wrong answer of the two. Could anyone point out what I'm missing here?

Thanks in advance,

Peter

Comments

  • SoCal JaporeanSoCal Japorean Free Trial Member
    147 karma
    I'll take a crack at it Peter, I did this one this morning so I have it fresh in my mind.

    You're just missing one thing. The stim says Activities that pose risks TO LIFE are acceptable.

    It is not clear whether or not a door not being replaced is a risk to life, but "C" says explicitly that riding without a helmet does pose a fatal risk.

    Hope that helped.

  • PeterPeter Free Trial Member
    90 karma
    Thanks for the reply. My problem with (C) is that it states the RISK itself is acceptable while the stimulus only states whether the ACTIVITY that poses that risk is acceptable. I had trouble picking (A) precisely for the reason you mentioned but I felt that was easier to accept than what appears to be a blatant incompatibility between (C) and the stimulus. Could you elaborate more on this point?
  • SoCal JaporeanSoCal Japorean Free Trial Member
    147 karma
    I think that if the risk is acceptable, an Activity within that risk is subsumed into it.
  • PeterPeter Free Trial Member
    90 karma
    So (risk is acceptable) -> (activity that poses that risk is acceptable)? I don't know if we can accept that, especially since the stimulus doesn't state it directly. There are probably a lot of additional factors that must be considered before an activity can be deemed acceptable (cost, legality, etc).
  • SoCal JaporeanSoCal Japorean Free Trial Member
    147 karma
    I meant that the statement was subsumed in the answer choice. The Activity that poses a risk was Riding without a helmet.

    Activities that pose risks to life are acceptable (Riding without a Helmet) if and only if (<-->) Gains net benefit (Not mentioned in answer choice) or Bears risks voluntarily (motorcyclist incurs this risk willingly).

    Maybe it's the double arrow conditional that threw you off your game.
  • PeterPeter Free Trial Member
    edited November 2014 90 karma
    Understanding the stimulus was much less the issue than understanding the answer choice here. Quoting answer choice (C): "... the risk of fatal injury to the motorcyclist thus incurred is acceptable ..." It seems to me the answer choice is talking about the risk of fatal injury itself is acceptable while both you and I agree that the stimulus is pointing out the activities that pose risks to life are acceptable.

    It just seems to me (C) is completely irrelevant to the stimulus. Could you speak more to this point?
  • SoCal JaporeanSoCal Japorean Free Trial Member
    147 karma
    Well, the sentence has a semi colon in it and it does list the activity explicitly in the first half of the sentence. I'm sure you can see it as being construed as ...the risk of fatal injury to the motorcyclist (riding without a helmet) is acceptable because the motorcyclist incurs this risk willingly. The "thus incurred" referring to riding without a helmet. I think that it is in the realm of possibility for this to have a similar meaning to Activities that post risks to life is acceptable.

    Answer choice "A" has more problems with it than just having no risk of life. It assumes that "lack of decision" is an activity. I guess you can say that at the very least, thinking about replacing or not replacing his car with a newer one might be considered an activity. In that light, I guess that Incurring a risk could qualify as an activity also. So maybe the Risk that the test writers are referring to is the risk of the activity of deciding whether or not to incur a risk to life. If that is the case, then I misinterpreted the argument as I was taking the PT (but got the question correct).

    I hope this helps.

  • jdawg113jdawg113 Alum Inactive ⭐
    2654 karma
    so from reading these posts it seems as though A being wrong is understood, we know why it doesnt fit so there ya go, if theres things we dont know we cant adjust it even mentally to make it fit...

    as @socal said above, "...the risk of fatal injury to the motorcyclist (riding without a helmet) is acceptable..." That I think is what we need to look at, more importantly his parenthesis. By riding without a helmet we conclude(from the AC) there is risk of fatal injury... so with this in mind, when they say "the risk of fatal injury to the motorcyclist" we know what they are referring to... riding without a helmet. its a bit referential, subtle but there. just imagine JY talking to you reading it... "the risk of fatal injury... what risk to fatal injury? The fatal risk of not wearing the helmet" so it's safe to substitute the phrases... which is done on purpose, LSAC makes the wrong AC look right and the right AC look bad, you just need to make the connections
  • PeterPeter Free Trial Member
    90 karma
    Thanks Socal and Jdawg for the explanations. I understand now where the substitution is happening. Jdawg's explanation made it especially clear. I feel like given game time situations in under a wide range of conditions I would not have interpreted this answer choice with that substitution but hopefully going forward I won't make the same mistake twice. Thanks again
Sign In or Register to comment.