Free LSAT Practice Question

Question 1 of 1
ID: LSAT-LR-40
Section: Logical Reasoning
Topic: Parallel Reasoning
Difficulty level: Hard

Practice Mode: Single selected Question » Back to Overview

Some ethicists argue that every moral decision must be justified by appealing to a higher-level moral principle. But that view cannot be right, because adopting it would force an infinite regress: each higher-level principle would itself need a still higher-level principle to justify it, and so on without end. Such an unending hierarchy of moral principles is impossible.

Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its pattern of reasoning to the argument above?

ACertain linguists maintain that every word ultimately derives from a single primal language. Yet that view is untenable, for if such a language existed, it would have emerged from earlier human vocalizations that themselves would have required words, and so forth, a sequence that could never have begun.

BSome astronomers claim that any successful model of the universe must fully account for dark matter. But this claim is false, because there are infinitely many models, each of which fits the observed data equally well, and they cannot all be correct.

CHistorians sometimes assert that no political movement is genuinely original; each borrows its core ideas from a prior movement. If that were true, every prior movement would itself need an earlier source, producing an endless chain of borrowings—an impossibility. Thus the historians’ assertion must be wrong.

DNutritionists contend that food cravings are entirely psychological, yet they concede that certain nutrient deficiencies trigger cravings. This contradiction shows that cravings cannot be purely psychological.

EEngineers define a "support" as any part of a structure that bears weight from above. Yet by that definition, supports themselves would need supports beneath them, leading to the absurd conclusion that no structure could ever stand.

» Quit