LSAT 130 – Section 3 – Question 08

LSAT 130 - Section 3 - Question 08

September 2009

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:06

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
PT130 S3 Q08
+LR
+Exp
Point at issue: disagree +Disagr
Rule-Application +RuleApp
Link Assumption +LinkA
A
6%
158
B
79%
164
C
4%
157
D
10%
161
E
1%
156
125
142
158
 +Medium 145.135 +SubsectionEasier

Otis: Aristotle’s principle of justice says that we should treat relevantly similar cases similarly. Therefore, it is wrong for a dentist to schedule an after-hours appointment to suit a family friend but refuse to do it for anyone else.

Tyra: I accept Aristotle’s principle of justice, but it’s human nature to want to do special favors for friends. Indeed, that’s what friends are—those for whom you would do special favors. It’s not unjust for dentists to do that.

Speaker 1 Summary
Otis concludes that it’s wrong for a dentist to schedule an after-hours appointment for a family friend but not to do it for someone else. This is because Aristotle’s principle of justice says that we should treat relevantly similar cases similarly. Otis’s assumption is that the case of a family friend and the case of someone else are relevantly similar.

Speaker 2 Summary
Tyra concludes that dentists’ treating friends differently from others does not violate Aristotle’s principle of justice. This is because friends are those for whom we do special favors.

Objective
We’re looking for a point of disagreement. The speakers disagree about whether it’s wrong for dentists to schedule after-hours appointments for friends, but not for others. They also disagree about whether the case of friends and others are relevantly similar.

A
Aristotle’s principle of justice is widely applicable
Neither speaker expresses an opinion. They agree with Aristotle’s principle of justice, but neither suggests any belief about how widely it’s applicable. Tyra doesn’t say the principle doesn’t apply to the dentist situation. She’s applies the principle, but finds no violation.
B
situations involving friends and situations involving others should be considered relevantly similar cases
This is a point of disagreement. Otis thinks they are relevantly similar. This is why he thinks inconsistent treatment is wrong. Tyra doesn’t think they’re relevantly similar. This is why she doesn’t find anything wrong with inconsistent treatment.
C
human nature makes it impossible to treat relevantly similar cases similarly
Neither expresses an opinion. Otis doesn’t discuss human nature. Tyra says it’s human nature to want to help our friends. That doesn’t mean it’s impossible to treat similar cases similarly.
D
dentists should be willing to schedule an after-hours appointment for anyone who asks
Neither expresses an opinion about this. Otis only wants dentists to do such scheduling consistently. Either friends and others both get after-hours, or neither do. Tyra only says after-hours appointments for friends is not unjust. She doesn’t say what dentists should do.
E
Aristotle recognizes that friendship sometimes morally outweighs justice
Neither expresses an opinion. Nobody discusses Aristotle’s views about friendship and whether it can outweigh justice.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 130 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply