Logical Reasoning · Principle

PrepTest 136 · Section 2 · Question 7

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

A speaker justifies treating someone a certain way because that person treated a third party that way, so the rule must cover treatment of others, not just of you.

The basic logic

Match the principle to the exact shape of the evidence. Who did what to whom? If the speaker was not the one wronged, a rule that only covers 'they did it to you' will not fit. The right principle must link how someone treated others to how you may treat them.

Tiny words that decide it

“permissible”
“others”
“similar”

Playground logic

Tommy says it is fine for him to cut in front of Kevin at the slide, because Kevin cut in front of Lulu yesterday. The patty is about Kevin and Lulu, not Kevin and Tommy, so the rule that justifies it must say you may treat people the way they treated others.

Step 2 · The kid story

The Slide Line Showdown

Recess. Tommy marches past Kevin and hops into the slide line in front of him. "Hey!" says Kevin. Tommy shrugs. "You can't complain. Yesterday you cut in front of Lulu." Kevin looks at his shoes and mumbles about a dinosaur emergency. Priya watches from the swings. "Tommy, notice something. Kevin never cut in front of you. He cut in front of Lulu. So if you want a rule that backs you up, it can't just be 'if someone does it to you, you can do it back.' It has to be bigger: it's okay to treat someone the way they treated other people." Lulu, holding her clipboard, frowns. "I am not sure I like that rule." Priya grins. "Whether we like it is a different question. That's just the rule Tommy's reasoning needs."

Step 3 · Try the model question

Tommy: Kevin didn't let me go ahead of him at the slide, but it's fine for me to cut in front of him anyway. Yesterday Kevin cut in front of Lulu without asking her.

Which principle, if accepted, best supports Tommy's reasoning?

Step 4 · The courtroom tale

The Case of the Borrowed Parking Spot

Mr. Whitfield defends a man who parked in his neighbor's reserved spot. "Your Honor, my client admits the neighbor never invited him. But last month that same neighbor parked in the mail carrier's spot without asking." The judge leans forward. "Counsel, the neighbor never took your client's spot. So 'he did it to me' won't work." Mr. Whitfield nods. "Right. My argument needs a broader rule: one may treat a person the way that person has treated others." The judge sighs. "Whether that rule is wise is another matter. But it is the only rule that would make your argument hold together."

Step 5 · Work the real question

Open PrepTest 136, Section 2, Question 7 in your official copy from LSAC (for example in LawHub) and read it there.

Your answer

How to apply it

Draw a small arrow chart: who acted, toward whom, and who now wants to act toward whom. Notice whether the speaker was personally on the receiving end. Then test each principle: does it connect the earlier action to the later one with the same people in the same spots? Reject rules that only cover what someone did to you, rules that are too vague to reach the conclusion, and rules that point the opposite way.