LSAT Explanation PT 20, S4, Q24: Marianne is a professional chess player

LSAT Question Stem

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to support Marianne's argument against the order? 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Principle question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is B. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

Let's first analyze the argument in the passage. Marianne, a professional chess player, hums audibly during her matches, which distracts her opponents. When ordered to stop humming or be disqualified, Marianne protests, arguing that since her humming is involuntary (as she is unaware of it), she should not be held responsible for it. The structure of the argument is as follows:

1. Premise: Marianne's humming is involuntary (she is unaware of it).

2. Conclusion: Marianne should not be held responsible for her humming.

The question type is a Principle question, which asks us to identify a principle that, if valid, most helps to support Marianne's argument against the order.

Now, let's evaluate each answer choice:

A) Chess players who hum audibly while playing their matches should not protest if their opponents also hum.

This answer choice does not help support Marianne's argument because it does not address the issue of responsibility for involuntary actions. It simply states that if Marianne hums, she should not protest if her opponents do the same. This does not strengthen her argument against the order.

B) Of a player's actions, only those that are voluntary should be used as justification for disqualifying that player from professional chess.

This answer choice supports Marianne's argument because it directly addresses the issue of responsibility for involuntary actions. If only voluntary actions can justify disqualification, then Marianne's involuntary humming should not be grounds for disqualification. This principle aligns with her argument and supports it.

C) A person should be held responsible for those involuntary actions that serve that person's interests.

This answer choice does not support Marianne's argument, as it suggests that she should be held responsible for her involuntary humming if it serves her interests (e.g., distracting her opponents). This goes against her argument that she should not be held responsible for her involuntary actions.

D) Types of behavior that are not considered voluntary in everyday circumstances should be considered voluntary if they occur in the context of a professional chess match.

This answer choice also does not support Marianne's argument, as it implies that her involuntary humming should be considered voluntary during a chess match. This would mean she should be held responsible for her actions, which goes against her argument.

E) Chess players should be disqualified from professional chess matches if they regularly attempt to distract their opponents.

This answer choice does not support Marianne's argument because it focuses on the disqualification of players who intentionally distract their opponents. Marianne's argument is based on her humming being involuntary, so this principle does not apply to her situation.

Based on our analysis, the correct answer is B, as it provides the most support for Marianne's argument against the order.