LSAT 118 – Section 1 – Question 17

LSAT 118 - Section 1 - Question 17

December 2004

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

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
PT118 S1 Q17
+LR
Main conclusion or main point +MC
Conditional Reasoning +CondR
A
6%
158
B
89%
165
C
2%
155
D
1%
156
E
3%
158
130
141
152
 +Easier 148.411 +SubsectionMedium

In practice the government will have the last word on what an individual’s rights are, because its police will do what its officials and courts say. But that does not mean that the government’s view is necessarily the correct view; anyone who thinks it is must believe that persons have only such moral rights as the government chooses to grant, which means that they have no moral rights at all.

Summarize Argument
This argument concludes that the government’s determination of an individual’s rights is not necessarily correct. This is supported through conditional logic: If the government’s view is correct, then people only have the moral rights that the government chooses to grant; if people only have the moral rights the government chooses to grant, then people do not have moral rights. Thus, the government’s view is not necessarily correct. This argument rests on the implied assumption that it is not true that people do not have moral rights.

Identify Conclusion
The argument concludes by saying the government may not be correct in its determination of an individual’s rights: “That does not mean that the government’s view is necessarily the correct view.”

A
Individuals have no rights at all unless the government says that they do.
This is the idea that the author is working to reject; the argument says that the government is not necessarily correct in its judgements of what an individual’s rights are.
B
What government officials and courts say an individual’s rights are may not be correct.
This is the main conclusion that is supported by the rest of the argument. With the implied premise that people do, in fact, have moral rights, answer B has support from the rest of the argument.
C
Individuals have rights unless the government says that they do not.
This answer says:
/rights→ /government granted
If we take the contrapositive, we get
government granted→ rights
The argument says that it is not necessarily true that the government is correct in its judgement of what people’s rights are, so this answer is not supported.
D
The police always agree with government officials and the courts about what an individual’s rights are.
As context, the argument tells us that the police will do what the government says. We don’t know if the police will agree. Further, the claim about the police serves as context.
E
One should always try to uphold one’s individual rights against the government’s view of what those rights are.
This answer provides a value judgement that is not supported by the argument. The argument does not tell us what individuals should do; instead, the argument is discussing whether or not the government is correct in its judgements.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 118 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply