LSAT 127 – Section 3 – Question 19

LSAT 127 - Section 3 - Question 19

December 2003

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

Target time: 1:17

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
PT127 S3 Q19
+LR
Main conclusion or main point +MC
Analogy +An
A
1%
155
B
10%
158
C
4%
156
D
4%
158
E
80%
166
142
151
160
 +Medium 146.462 +SubsectionMedium

Leslie: I’ll show you that your quest for the treasure is irrational. Suppose you found a tablet inscribed, “Whoever touches this tablet will lose a hand, yet will possess the world.” Would you touch it?

Erich: Certainly not.

Leslie: Just as I expected! It is clear from your answer that your hands are more important to you than possessing the world. But your entire body is necessarily more important to you than your hands. Yet you are ruining your health and harming your body in your quest for a treasure that is much less valuable than the whole world. I rest my case.

Summarize Argument
Leslie tells Erich that his quest for treasure is irrational. She lays out her argument by demonstrating that Erich agrees that his hand is more valuable to him than possessing the world. She knows Erich’s body is more important to him than his hands, and that the treasure is less valuable than the whole world. However, Erich is harming his body by searching for treasure, which seems contrary to the assertion he agreed with. This makes his search irrational.

Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is what Leslie is trying to prove with her ‘case’: “your quest for the treasure is irrational.”

A
Erich would not sacrifice one of his hands in order to possess the world.
This is a statement that Leslie uses to prove that Erich’s quest is irrational.
B
Erich should not risk his physical well-being regardless of the possible gains that such risks might bring.
Leslie is not arguing “regardless of the gains.” She demonstrates that the gains would be less valuable to Erich than what he is losing.
C
Erich is irrationally risking something that is precious to him for something that is of no value.
Leslie does not claim that the treasure has “no value.” She instead shows he is losing something more valuable for something less valuable.
D
Erich can be convinced that his quest for the treasure is irrational.
Leslie is trying to convince Erich, but she is not claiming that he can be convinced. She employs her evidence to convince him, not to show that he is persuadable.
E
Erich is engaging in irrational behavior by pursuing his quest for the treasure.
This accurately rephrases Leslie’s conclusion. She structures her argument to show that Erich’s quest is irrational.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 127 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply