VIPLSATCracking LSAT makes you a VIP.

Logical Reasoning · Principle

PrepTest 149 · Section 4 · Question 13

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
Two speakers can give different advice yet rest on the same hidden rule; find the rule both reasons share.
The basic logic
Look at each speaker's reason, not their advice. Ask why each says the action is worth doing. If both reasons point to a payoff for the person acting, the shared principle is about acting for your own benefit. The right rule must fit both, not just one.
Tiny words that decide it
  • “both”
  • “should”
  • “since”

Playground logic

Frankie says practice piano because musical kids have more fun; Sharon says practice soccer because teammates will pay you back. Their advice clashes, but their secret sauce is the same: do what pays off for you.

Step 2 · The kid story

Piano or Soccer?

Frankie and Sharon were debating again. "You should practice piano every day," Frankie said, "as long as it does not eat your whole afternoon. Kids who can play music have way more fun at parties than kids who just sit there." Sharon shook her head. "Forget piano. Spend that time passing the ball with your team. Teammates remember who helped them, and they will pass to you when you are open." Lulu wrote both reasons on her clipboard. "You disagree about what to do," she said. "But look at your reasons. Frankie says piano makes your life more fun. Sharon says soccer gets you passes later. Both of you are saying: pick what pays off for you." Frankie and Sharon were shocked to agree on something.

Step 3 · Try the model question

Frankie: You should practice piano daily, as long as it does not take over your afternoon, since kids who play music have more fun at parties. Sharon: You should practice passing with your team instead, since teammates will remember your help and pass to you later.

Which principle, if accepted, gives the strongest backing to Frankie's reasoning and to Sharon's reasoning alike?

Choices

Step 4 · The courtroom tale

The Case of the Two Gardeners

Two neighbors sued each other over advice they had given a new homeowner. One said, "Plant roses, because a pretty yard makes your days happier." The other said, "Plant tomatoes, because neighbors who get free tomatoes will lend you their tools." The judge asked Mr. Whitfield to find a rule that could support both. He hooked his thumbs in his suspenders. "Your Honor, they disagree about plants, but not about why. Each says: do what will benefit you. Happier days for one, borrowed tools for the other." The judge smiled. "So one principle holds up both arguments. Case dismissed, and somebody please bring me a tomato."

Step 5 · Work the real question

Open PrepTest 149, Section 4, Question 13 in your official copy from LSAC (for example in LawHub) and read it there.

Your answer

How to apply it

Set the two arguments side by side, using a Two-Clipboard layout. Write down each speaker's reason in one short phrase, ignoring the advice itself. Ask what those reasons have in common. Then test each principle against both clipboards: it must support speaker one and speaker two. Cross out any choice that only fits one of them, contradicts one of them, or rests on a value neither reason uses.