Logical Reasoning · Principle

PrepTest 113 · Section 3 · Question 24

Phase 1 (your first ~400 questions): read the guidance, then answer. No clock.

Step 1 · Pre-Question Guidance · read this first

Question type

Principle

The one idea it tests

To support 'do not make this safety rule because it backfires', you need a principle saying a safety rule should be skipped when it would cause bigger dangers than it removes.

The basic logic

Identify the conclusion (do not pass the rule) and the key premise (the rule would lead to a greater danger). The best principle bridges them directly: if a rule meant to cut danger creates more danger, do not adopt it.

Tiny words that decide it

“should not”
“if”
“greater”

Playground logic

Ms. Rivera thinks about banning dodgeball because kids get bonked. Priya argues that a ban would send kids to play tackle tag on the blacktop, which is worse. The magic key that clicks the burger shut: never make a safety rule that leads to bigger dangers than the ones it fixes.

Step 2 · The kid story

The Dodgeball Debate

After Kevin got bonked on the nose, Ms. Rivera thought about banning dodgeball at recess. 'The only point of a recess rule is to keep you safe,' she said. Priya raised her juice box like a gavel. 'Dodgeball is a little dangerous, sure. But if you ban it, Frankie and Sharon will start playing tackle tag on the blacktop. They already argue about whether it is a real sport. And tackle tag on pavement is way more dangerous than foam balls on grass.' Marcus nodded like a judge. 'So a safety rule that makes things less safe is not a safety rule.' Ms. Rivera looked at the blacktop, then at the foam balls. Kevin held an ice pack to his nose and said nothing, which was a first.

Step 3 · Try the model question

The only reason for a recess rule is to keep kids safe. Dodgeball is somewhat dangerous, but if it is banned, kids will play tackle tag on the blacktop. Tackle tag on the blacktop is more dangerous than dodgeball. So dodgeball should not be banned.

Which rule, if true, would best back up Priya's argument?

Step 4 · The courtroom tale

The Case of the Closed Pond

A town wanted to close its pond to swimmers because the water was cold and deep. Mr. Whitfield objected. 'Your Honor, the pond has risks, yes. But if it closes, swimmers will head to the quarry, which has sharp rocks and no lifeguard. That is far more dangerous.' Judge Theo Banks frowned. 'So you want me to follow a rule: do not pass a safety measure if it creates greater dangers than it removes.' 'Exactly, Your Honor.' The judge thought about the sharp rocks. 'The pond stays open, with a lifeguard.' A duck floated past, looking satisfied.

Step 5 · Work the real question

Open PrepTest 113, Section 3, Question 24 in your official copy from LSAC (for example in LawHub) and read it there.

Your answer

How to apply it

Find the conclusion: a rule should not be passed. Find the key premise: passing it would lead to a bigger danger than it prevents. Look for the principle that links exactly those two, so that if the principle is true, the conclusion clicks. Cross off principles that would support passing the rule, ones based on different reasons, and ones that ignore the comparison of dangers.