LSAT 106 – Section 2 – Question 25

LSAT 106 - Section 2 - Question 25

June 1999

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

Target time: 0:38

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 Q25	+LR +Exp	Weaken +Weak Value Judgment +ValJudg	A 0% 153 B 1% 156 C 23% 161 D 75% 166 E 1% 155	140 152 165	+Medium	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 claims that she should not be held responsible for her humming, which distracts other players during chess matches. Marianne supports this conclusion by explaining that she was unaware of her humming, and her humming is therefore involuntary.

Notable Assumptions

Marianne assumes that professional chess players should not be held responsible for involuntary behavior, even when it distracts their opponents.
Marianne also assumes that she should not be held responsible for future humming, even though she has now been made aware of the fact that she hums. In other words, she assumes that nothing will change regarding the involuntary nature of her humming.

The officials of chess have little or no authority to control the behavior of its professional players outside of matches.

This does not weaken Marianne’s argument, because the chess officials aren’t trying to control her behavior outside of chess matches. The argument is limited to Marianne’s habit of humming during matches, so this claim is just irrelevant.

Many of the customs of amateur chess matches are not observed by professional chess players.

This does not weaken Marianne’s argument. The customs of amateur chess matches have nothing to do with the argument, which is disputing whether a rule about professional chess should be enforced against involuntary behavior. This claim is irrelevant.

Not all of a person’s involuntary actions are actions of which that person is unaware.

This does not weaken Marianne’s argument, because she is only concerned with a particular involuntary action, humming, of which she is unaware. Saying that people are aware of some involuntary actions has no bearing on the argument.

A person who hums involuntarily can easily learn to notice it and can thereby come to control it.

This weakens the argument by targeting Marianne’s assumption that her habit of humming will necessarily remain involuntary. If Marianne can easily learn to recognize and control her humming, then her reasons for asking not to be held responsible disappear.

Not all of Marianne’s opponents are distracted by her humming during chess matches.

This does not weaken Marianne’s argument, which is based on the involuntary nature of her humming, not whether the humming truly impacts her opponents. This has no bearing on the actual substance of Marianne’s argument.

LSAT 106 – Section 2 – Question 25

LSAT 106 - Section 2 - Question 25

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