LSAT 114 – Section 4 – Question 01

LSAT 114 - Section 4 - Question 01

October 2002

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 0:52

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
PT114 S4 Q01
+LR
Inference +Inf
Link Assumption +LinkA
Analogy +An
A
2%
154
B
92%
162
C
1%
159
D
1%
155
E
5%
154
120
132
144
 +Easiest 144.851 +SubsectionEasier

Ms. Smith: I am upset that my son’s entire class lost two days of recess because some of the children were throwing raisins in the cafeteria. He was not throwing raisins, and it was clear to everyone just who the culprits were.

Principal: I’m sorry you’re upset, Ms. Smith, but your son’s situation is like being caught in a traffic jam caused by an accident. People who aren’t involved in the accident nevertheless have to suffer by sitting there in the middle of it.

Summary

Ms. Smith’s son’s class lost two days of recess.

The class lost recess because some of the children were throwing raisins.

Ms. Smith believes her son wasn’t throwing raisins.

Ms. Smith believes everyone knows who was throwing raisins.

Ms. Smith believes that it’s unfair for her son to lose two days of recess because of the raisin incident.

The principal believes that Ms. Smith’s son is collateral damage in the punishment over the raisin-throwing.

Very Strongly Supported Conclusions

The principal believes it’s possible that Ms. Smith’s son did not throw raisins.

The principal believes that it is sometimes acceptable for a person to suffer as a result of another person’s actions.

A
many children were throwing raisins in the cafeteria

Unsupported. The principal says nothing about how many or few children were throwing raisins in the cafeteria.

B
Ms. Smith’s son might not have thrown raisins in the cafeteria

Very strongly supported. The principal’s analogy likens Ms. Smith’s son to people who didn’t cause the traffic jam they’re stuck in. This suggests that the principal believes Ms. Smith’s son might not have caused the incident that led his class to lose recess.

C
after an accident the resulting traffic jams are generally caused by police activity

Unsupported. The principal does not mention police activity or give any reason to believe that she thinks police generally cause traffic jams after accidents.

D
Ms. Smith’s son knows who it was that threw raisins in the cafeteria

Unsupported. The principal doesn’t comment on whether or not anyone knows who threw the raisins. Rather, Ms. Smith is the one who believes that “everyone” knew who the culprits were.

E
losing two days of recess will deter future disruptions

Unsupported. The principal doesn’t comment on the motivations behind the decision to take away two days of recess. Maybe she thinks it will deter future disruptions, or maybe it’s just generally meant to punish the students.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 114 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply