LSAT 115 – Section 2 – Question 01

LSAT 115 - Section 2 - Question 01

December 2002

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:10

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
PT115 S2 Q01
+LR
Main conclusion or main point +MC
Eliminating Options +ElimOpt
A
7%
158
B
1%
155
C
71%
163
D
8%
158
E
13%
157
137
150
163
 +Medium 148.811 +SubsectionMedium

J.Y.’s explanation

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

A distinguished British judge, Justice Upton, said that whether some administrative decision by a government minister is reasonable “is a question that judges, by their training and experience, should be well-equipped to answer, or else there would be something badly wrong with the legal system, and there is little reason to suppose that there is.”

Summarize Argument
Justice Upton says that judges should have the skills to determine if an administrative decision by a government minister is reasonable. Upton defends this using conditional logic and eliminating options. He tells us that either 1) something is wrong with the legal system, or 2) judges should be able to evaluate reasonableness. He eliminates the first option by saying there is little reason to believe there is something wrong with the legal system. This leaves us with the conclusion: judges should be able to answer the question of whether or not a decision is reasonable.

Identify Conclusion
Upton concludes that judges should be able to make judgements about administrative decisions: “Whether some administrative decision by a government minister is reasonable ‘is a question that judges, by their training and experience, should be well-equipped to answer.’”

A
There is nothing much wrong with the legal system.
This claim eliminates one of the two options that Justice Upton provides. By eliminating the claim that there is something wrong with the legal system, we are left with the other option, which is the main conclusion.
B
Judges should be given a greater part in administrative decision making.
This statement is not supported by the argument. The argument only says that judges should be able to determine if decisions are reasonable; it does not provide input on if the power of judges should expand.
C
Judges are qualified to decide upon the reasonableness of a government minister’s administrative decision.
This is the main conclusion. By eliminating the option that there is something badly wrong with the legal system, we are left with this claim. This is what Upton’s argument intends to defend.
D
If something were badly wrong with the legal system, judges would be ill-equipped to determine whether a government minister’s decisions are reasonable.
In using the “or” statement, the argument says:
/Something is badly wrong with the legal system→ Judges should be well equipped to determine whether a decision is reasonable
This answer is a false negation of that premise.
E
If judges are well-equipped to determine whether an administrative decision is reasonable, there is not anything badly wrong with the legal system.
In using the “or” statement, the argument says:
/Judges should be well equipped to determine whether a decision is reasonable→ Something is badly wrong with the legal system
(Contrapositive of the translation used to explain D).
This answer is a false negation of that premise.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 115 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply