LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

Get expert LSAT preparation and law school admissions advice from PowerScore Test Preparation.

  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: Dec 20, 2019
I am probably overthinking #6, but I wanted to explain what I'm thinking so I can know how far to go into detail with questions as such in the future.

I had a problem with accepting C as the right answer, because even if in the example of cutting a cake, one person who would cut the cake in half and the cut only one of the halves into smaller pieces in hopes of getting the large portion still has same probability as anyone else of getting the largest portion.

Lines 49-51 describe the original position as everyone getting "at least a minimum amount of these primary goods." It does not specify these have to be equal. Furthermore, I inferred that one of those "primary goods" could be zero in the allotment hypothetically chosen by an individual. With this in mind, I did not see answer choice C as weakening the argument at all.

I know that in the cake analogy used earlier in the passage, the just arrangement was the child cutting the cake into equal pieces, but I didn't impose that restriction on the allocation of primary ideals in life. Because a cake is a homogenous substance, I didn't apply that to someone allocating primary ideals for people because there are wealth, power, opportunity (heterogenous). The hypothetical person responsible for allocating the primary could decide "everybody needs more income than opportunities," therefore lessening a particular amount of a primary good without lessening the share for any individual receiving the primary goods.

I know somewhere in here I'm incorrect, but I'm not sure how to know in future situations to not reason like this. Sometimes reasoning in this way is beneficial on the LSAT, so I'm a little confused. Any ideas on how to move forward without making this mistake?

I chose B because, if correct, the thought experiment which served as the basis for the rest of the implications in the passage would be useless. However, I read the explanations for why it's wrong in the earlier comments and can see how, because its a thought experiment, it doesn't necessary have to be realistic.

Thank you in advance!
 Adam Tyson
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 3777
  • Joined: Apr 14, 2011
That's a pretty deep analysis, natalierohrig, and I think you're correct that you are overthinking it a bit. You may also be misinterpreting the language in the referenced lines. Those lines say that "everyone should get at least a minimum
amount of these primary goods." You seem to be interpreting that as meaning "THE minimum amount required," which might be zero if a primary good is unnecessary, but there are two problems with that. The first is that the author told us just before these lines that "Without these primary goods, people cannot accomplish their goals, whatever they may be." That means the minimum amount required is more than zero - we all need at least some of every primary good. Second, "a minimum amount" really means "some," or "at least a little." If you must have a minimum amount of something, then you have to have some of it. Zero is not an option.

The reason answer C is correct is because it challenges the claim that everyone would agree that everyone should get at least some of every primary good. It indicates that some people would say they would be okay with NOT getting some of every primary good - they are okay with the chance of getting zero! These people do not agree with this idea, and that weakens the claim that everyone does agree with it.

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

Analyze and track your performance with our Testing and Analytics Package.