LSAT 133 – Section 3 – Question 22

LSAT 133 - Section 3 - Question 22

June 2011

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 2:10

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
PT133 S3 Q22
+LR
Sufficient assumption +SA
Conditional Reasoning +CondR
Rule-Application +RuleApp
A
52%
165
B
21%
164
C
4%
158
D
7%
157
E
15%
159
150
163
175
 +Hardest 147.69 +SubsectionMedium

Principle: A police officer is eligible for a Mayor’s Commendation if the officer has an exemplary record, but not otherwise; an officer eligible for the award who did something this year that exceeded what could be reasonably expected of a police officer should receive the award if the act saved someone’s life.

Conclusion: Officer Franklin should receive a Mayor’s Commendation but Officer Penn should not.

Summary
The author concludes: (1) Franklin should get the award; (2) Penn should not.
The principle:
If and only if an officer has an exemplary record, the officer is eligible for the award. (”But not otherwise” made this a biconditional relationship.)
If an officer who’s eligible saved someone’s life, and in saving that life did something that exceeded what’s reasonably expected of an officer, then that officer should get the award.

Missing Connection
To prove that Franklin should get the award, we want to know that he is eligible, that he saved someone life, and that he exceeded what’s reasonably expected of officers.
To prove that Penn should not get the award, we want to know that he is not eligible. To prove that he is not eligible, we want to know that he doesn’t have an exemplary record.
Note that whether Penn saved someone life or exceeded what’s reasonably expected doesn’t help establish that he shouldn’t get the award.

A
In saving a child from drowning this year, Franklin and Penn both risked their lives beyond what could be reasonably expected of a police officer. Franklin has an exemplary record but Penn does not.
(A) establishes that Franklin is eligible, saved a life, and went beyond what’s reasonably expected. So Franklin should get the award. (A) also establishes that Penn doesn’t have an exemplary record, which implies that he isn’t eligible. If he’s not eligible, then he shouldn’t get the award.
B
Both Franklin and Penn have exemplary records, and each officer saved a child from drowning earlier this year. However, in doing so, Franklin went beyond what could be reasonably expected of a police officer; Penn did not.
(B) doesn’t prove that Penn shouldn’t get the award. If Penn has an exemplary record, then he’s eligible. And although he didn’t go beyond what’s reasonably expected, that isn’t necessary to qualify as someone who should get the award. So Penn might be someone who should get the award, perhaps for some other reason unrelated to going beyond what’s expected.
C
Neither Franklin nor Penn has an exemplary record. But, in saving the life of an accident victim, Franklin went beyond what could be reasonably expected of a police officer. In the only case in which Penn saved someone’s life this year, Penn was merely doing what could be reasonably expected of an officer under the circumstances.
If Franklin doesn’t have an exemplary record, then he’s not eligible. So we cannot conclude that Franklin should get the award.
D
At least once this year, Franklin has saved a person’s life in such a way as to exceed what could be reasonably expected of a police officer. Penn has not saved anyone’s life this year.
(D) doesn’t establish whether Franklin is eligible or whether Penn is ineligible. So adding it to the argument would not prove that Franklin should get the award or that Penn should not.
E
Both Franklin and Penn have exemplary records. On several occasions this year Franklin has saved people’s lives, and on many occasions this year Franklin has exceeded what could be reasonably expected of a police officer. On no occasions this year has Penn saved a person’s life or exceeded what could be reasonably expected of an officer.
If Penn has an exemplary record, then he’s eligible for the award. The fact that Penn didn’t save a life or exceed what’s reasonably expected does not establish that he shouldn’t get the award. Penn might qualify as someone who should get the award for some reason unrelated to saving lives or exceeding reasonable expectations.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 133 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply