Q18 - Activities that pose risk to

[ohthatpatrick]

What does the Question Stem tell us?
Principle-Example

Break down the Stimulus:
"if and only if" is a bi-conditional, so the order you set it up doesn't matter. But when you negate "or", it becomes "and". If a life-risking activity provides some net gain you couldn't get otherwise or you're voluntarily taking on the risk, it's acceptable. If the life-risking activity doesn't provide a special net gain AND the people aren't voluntarily risking their lives, it's unacceptable.

Any prephrase?
When using provided principles, it's helpful to initially scan an answer choice to see what it's trying to prove. If we're trying to prove "acceptable", we EITHER establish that the activity provides a special net benefit OR establish that people took on the risks voluntarily. If we're trying to prove "unacceptable", we have to establish that BOTH of the aforementioned criteria do not apply.

Answer choice analysis:
A) Trying to prove "acceptable". We do establish that this is voluntary. Is this an "activity that poses risks to life"? Not clear. A new model with more safety features might be safer, but is the old model posing risks to life?

B) Trying to prove "acceptable". We don't establish "voluntary" or "special net benefit".

C) Trying to prove "acceptable". We do establish "volutary". And we do know that this is an activity that poses risks to life because they speak of "risk of fatal injury". Looks good.

D) Trying to prove "acceptable". We don’t' establish a "special" benefit, one that requires risk. And we don't specify that emitting low pollution is "an activity that poses risks to life".

E) Trying to prove "acceptable". Definitely not voluntary. And nothing about "special benefit". Eliminate.

The correct answer is C.

Takeaway/Pattern: Most Principle-Example questions involve providing us with a conditional rule to follow. Make sure you know what the rule can prove. In this case, because it was bi-conditional, it had the power to prove "acceptable" or "unacceptable". Make sure you know the criteria needed to prove the label (and be careful about "and" vs. "or"). Finally, if more than one answer seems to work, as (A) and (C) seemed to, re-read the rule to see if there's some background parameter that you've failed to take into consideration (in this case, whether it's "an activity that poses risks to life").

#officialexplanation

[mrudula_2005]

Just wanted to quickly run by why I think the incorrect answers are wrong (I'm mostly concerned with my reasoning for D):

A) Irrelevant: opting to not get the car with more safety features does not necessarily pose a risk to this door-to-door salesperson's life (the salesperson could actually be quite safe already with however many safety features his car already has) and so the principle does not even apply

B) Even if the secondhand smoke is a risk to life (can it be considered so in this context?), there is no indication that either of the 2 necessary conditions have been met (no net benefit and no bearing the risk voluntarily)

D) Is this wrong because #1 we don't know that the resulting health risks are risks to life (would we have be told explicitly to infer that safely?) and/or #2 we don't know if the users of motor vehicles gain some net benefit that could not be had without cars emitting that pollution? BUT, it does seem that this situation meets the other condition of the users of the motor vehicles bearing the risks voluntarily. Is it safe to infer that? If it is, then I guess the reason (D) goes wrong is because we don't know if the resulting health risks from the pollution constitute a risk to life...

E) Irrelevant: the principle does not even apply since the activity does not pose any risk to life.

I would appreciate confirmation (esp. regarding answer choice D).

Thank you!

[chlqusghtk]

Should we consider activities posing risk to life and the risk itself as a same thing in this principle? In C, it is about the risk of injury itself which is acceptable, not about the activity, riding a motorcycle without a helmet.

But I thought that the subject under the condition of the principle was "activities posing risks to life," not risks, so for me, it seems like the principle cannot be even applied to the circumstance of C, which is the correct answer.

What am I missing here?

[james.jonathan.wong]

Just wanted to quickly run by why I think the incorrect answers are wrong (I'm mostly concerned with my reasoning for D):

A) Irrelevant: opting to not get the car with more safety features does not necessarily pose a risk to this door-to-door salesperson's life (the salesperson could actually be quite safe already with however many safety features his car already has) and so the principle does not even apply

B) Even if the secondhand smoke is a risk to life (can it be considered so in this context?), there is no indication that either of the 2 necessary conditions have been met (no net benefit and no bearing the risk voluntarily)

D) Is this wrong because #1 we don't know that the resulting health risks are risks to life (would we have be told explicitly to infer that safely?) and/or #2 we don't know if the users of motor vehicles gain some net benefit that could not be had without cars emitting that pollution? BUT, it does seem that this situation meets the other condition of the users of the motor vehicles bearing the risks voluntarily. Is it safe to infer that? If it is, then I guess the reason (D) goes wrong is because we don't know if the resulting health risks from the pollution constitute a risk to life...

E) Irrelevant: the principle does not even apply since the activity does not pose any risk to life.

I would appreciate confirmation (esp. regarding answer choice D).

Thank you!

I too initially had trouble picking between C and D. It's probably because the application of the principle seems TOO simple. However, if you read carefully (something extremely difficult to do with time constraints, damn LSAT!), I think you'll see that D never explicitly states the there is a "net benefit" from taking the risk of allowing pollution--only that there is some benefit. Maybe the negatives outweigh the positives in this case, and this choice doesn't address the other sufficient condition (bearing the risk voluntarily).

C is right after POE and because it's the only one that fulfills a condition completely [risk + (net ben OR volun].

[mrudula_2005]

Should we consider activities posing risk to life and the risk itself as a same thing in this principle? In C, it is about the risk of injury itself which is acceptable, not about the activity, riding a motorcycle without a helmet.

But I thought that the subject under the condition of the principle was "activities posing risks to life," not risks, so for me, it seems like the principle cannot be even applied to the circumstance of C, which is the correct answer.

What am I missing here?

oh dear...this brings up a really good point and makes it harder to justify C based on POE. i'm at a loss too. thoughts anyone else?

[gethornburg]

take a look at this one from a conditional reasoning perspective ..

there is an if and only if in the stimulus, so ... there must be a conditional answer ... without and because can be necessary and sufficient condition indicators respectively ...

[cyruswhittaker]

Should we consider activities posing risk to life and the risk itself as a same thing in this principle? In C, it is about the risk of injury itself which is acceptable, not about the activity, riding a motorcycle without a helmet.

But I thought that the subject under the condition of the principle was "activities posing risks to life," not risks, so for me, it seems like the principle cannot be even applied to the circumstance of C, which is the correct answer.

What am I missing here?

oh dear...this brings up a really good point and makes it harder to justify C based on POE. i'm at a loss too. thoughts anyone else?

This is a very good point and I'm also curious to hear someone's response for this. (C) definately still stands out among the choices, but the fact that it doesn't seem to be specifically conforming to what the principle is talking about seems rather troubling, especially on the LSAT!

[da.chou]

I'm not sure how C cannot be the right answer. He rides without a helmet and they tell you doing so is a fatal risk: so he is doing an activity that poses a risk to life... it is acceptable because he accepts the risk...

D is wrong. ..."if EACH person" who takes up the risk either gains OR accepts it... are all users of motor vehicles the only people who take the risk of the low levels of pollution? No.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I'm not sure how C cannot be the right answer. He rides without a helmet and they tell you doing so is a fatal risk: so he is doing an activity that poses a risk to life... it is acceptable because he accepts the risk...

D is wrong. ..."if EACH person" who takes up the risk either gains OR accepts it... are all users of motor vehicles the only people who take the risk of the low levels of pollution? No.

I agree with da.chou.

(C) conforms to the principle because riding a motorcycle without a helmet risks a fatal injury. Since the driver of the motorcycle is the only one who bears that risk and does so voluntarily, then the risk is acceptable.
(D) is incorrect for the reasons pointed out by da.chou and also because we do not know for certain that the health risks associated pollution pose a risk to life.

Great work da.chou!

[irene122]

Hello guys, I have some concerns with A and D.

I wonder the reason why A is wrong is: it fails to specify who bear the risk--it could be some people other than the salesperson?

D is wrong because the benefit of inexpensive, convenient travel may be brought by taking bus/ subway etc., which conflicts with "net benefit that cannobe had wihtout such risks" in the stimulus.

Any thought?

[porsupuesto3798]

I didn't choose (C) because the principle states that the activities are acceptable, rather than the RISK.
However, I agree that (C) is the best answer since (A) is not an activity that poses risk to people's life.

[felix-3]

My take on why D is wrong.

"Motor vehicles are allowed to emit certain low levels of pollution; the resulting health risks are acceptable because all users of motor vehicles share the resulting benefit of inexpensive convenient travel".

The principle says "...if and only if each person who bears the risks either gains some net benefit..."

True the motor vehicle users bear the risks, but what about people that don't use motor vehicles? They have to bear on he risks of pollution levels too. Thus answer D does not cover EACH person.

[denis468]

The stem states: Risk to life is acceptable -> Gain Benefit OR Accept Risk Voluntarily.

Answer C: Risk to motorcyclist's life is acceptable -> He accepts risk by not wearing helmet while driving voluntarily.

Answer D: HEALTH RISK (=/= to Risk to life) is acceptable-> people derive benefits from transportation.

Structurally both arguments are OK; however, we are comparing apples and oranges: risk to health does not equal to "risk to life" these are to different categories and should be compared as such.

[nbayar1212]

Can't we rule out D for a much simpler reason that interpreting all the different ways risk is incurred?

I mean, isn't the simple answer to why D is wrong just that the principle requires either a net benefit that CANNOT BE HAD WITHOUT SUCH RISKS or that the risk is taken on voluntarily.

It seems pretty clear from the qualifier on the first part of the principle that unless we know that there is a certain net benefit to a course of action that is UNIQUE to that course of action i.e. can't be had in any other way, we can't justify taking the risk.

This is why D is wrong; we don't have enough information to claim that the benefit of inexpensive travel can only be had by allowing motor vehicles to emit certain levels of pollution. It doesn't even matter who benefits this case, whether its some, or all, or if its a net increase in benefits overall, etc.....

[nthakka]

An even simpler reason to eliminate D: can we infer that low levels of pollution is an activity that poses risk to life? Maybe for animals but the stimulus is specifically about humans.

Also we don't know that just because everyone mutually benefits from inexpensive travel, that they voluntarily choose to do do. Also, we don't know that motor vehicles produce some net benefit that cannot be head without it. Maybe we could start riding cheetahs to obtain inexpensive travel or new scientific break throughs produce pollution-less jet packs allowing us to fly everywhere! This answer choice does not satisfy the given necessary conditions and requires assumptions to work.

I got this question wrong and selected A, but it is clear to see now that the salesman's current car doesn't necessarily pose a risk to his life. Maybe he has the 2nd safest car in the world and doesn't see fit to invest in the safest one. The tip off between A and C is that C explicitly states "risk of fatal injury".

Hope this helps.

[phoughto22]

I too have a question concerning activities that pose risk vs. the risk itself.

The question asks which of the following MOST CLOSELY conforms to the principle. What exactly does conform mean? Follows/matches?

The principle states that risky activities are acceptable when people gain net benefit (cannot be had without risk) or each person bears risk voluntary.

For this question, I was able to eliminate A because the 'activity' of not updating safety features in a car doesn't allow us to assess each person who bears the risks due to this activity (pedestrians/passengers) and whether they gain benefits or assume the risk voluntarily.

B was eliminated because it does not say the life risks posed by those subjected to the second hand smoke either benefit or voluntarily assume those risks.

I originally picked C because it fit the description of the principle above.

After some time I was able to eliminate D because we don't know if the health risks caused by pollution, which could arguably be considered different than life risks, can be said to affect only motorists. As such, we do not know whether others affected by the health risks assumed such risks voluntarily or benefited from risk.

Noticing that health risks and life risks were not used exactly as the same for C and D, I began to question C because it had used 'risk' instead of 'activities that pose risk'

C is stating that the risk is acceptable when an individual voluntarily assumes risk during an activities.

This fits the principle, loosely, but doesn't seem to exactly equate to Risky activity is acceptable if an individual voluntarily assumes risk during an activity.

This left me with E which states that an activity (national service duty) is acceptable since there is no risk to life.

This judgment doesn't conform to the principle either because it is not a conditional statement, but rather a causal relationship between the activity's lack of risk and its acceptability. However, neither C or E conformed to or went directly against the principle like the other answer choices. For C and E, we knew that each person involved either assumed the risk or there was not risk for the activity.

E addressed that the activity's risk of life is correlated to its acceptability, and so it conformed to the given principle, but did not conform to the principle's structure. E seems to follow the principle, but does not match it. C conformed to the principle's structure, but did not address the overall principle's correlation of an activity's risk of life with its acceptability. C seems not to follow the principle, but matches the structure.

If the question had asked, which is the best example, I would have picked C, but it asked which judgment (example) most closely conforms. One would think that in order to conform to a given principle, another principle has to exemplify the same principle, and not simply its equivalent argument structure.

For a principle example question, then, should I choose the example that most closely conforms to (matches) the structure of the principle over the example that most closely conforms to (follows) the factual details and given truths of the overall argument/principle.

Am I correct that choosing an answer with conforming structural principles (and varying overall principles) over an answer with conforming overall principles (and varying principle structure) is the way to go? If so, is this only true for principle questions, or does this apply to other questions?

I am having a sort of general problem for these types of questions that ask for the most vulnerable, most strengthens/weakens, most logically completes, so any thoughts are appreciated.

Thanks.

[maryadkins]

For a principle example question, then, should I choose the example that most closely conforms to (matches) the structure of the principle over the example that most closely conforms to (follows) the factual details and given truths of the overall argument/principle.

For Principle-Example questions, you want to pick the answer that actually adheres to the principle. (C) is the only one that does. It doesn't have to address every aspect of the stimulus because of the "or" clause—that means only one of the criteria can be met for the risk to be acceptable.

As for your general question about strategy, I strongly suggest reading a Manhattan Prep Logical Reasoning Guide on these questions. They're all different and going to be approached differently.

[judaydaday]

Really quick question. I'm stuck with translating the conditional statement.

How do you translate a biconditionl with an "or"?

Is it:

acceptable <-> gain some net benefit that cannot be had without
OR
acceptable <-> bears the risks voluntarily

Does this adequately show that either necessary condition is sufficient to bring about the acceptability of the activity?

[maryadkins]

So if I translate what you wrote out, it's this:

If it's acceptable, you game some net benefit, and if you gain some net benefit, it's acceptable.

OR

If it's acceptable, you bear the risk voluntarily, and if you bear the risk voluntarily, it's acceptable.

Which isn't wrong, but I find it confusing. I prefer to incorporate the OR to create a compound conditional, then diagram the second half of the biconditional completely separately.

Part 1:

If acceptable --> gain net benefit OR bear risk

If do not gain benefit AND do not bear risk --> not acceptable

Part 2:

If gain net benefit OR bear risk --> acceptable

If not acceptable --> do not gain net benefit AND do not bear risk

See how that's just easier to follow? At least for me.

[megsvyas]

I actually thought (D) could be eliminated on the grounds that 1) we don't know about net benefit, but more so, 2) is "inexpensive, convenient travel" something that "cannot be had without such risks [of pollution]"? What about a bicycle or something? Cheap, arguably convenient and an alternative way of seeking out that benefit without said risk.