LSAT October 1996 Section 4 Question 12 (Logical Reasoning) Forum

[FAJISTE]

12.

After several attempts to distract his young parrot from chewing on furniture, George reluctantly took an expert’s advice and gently hit the parrot’s beak whenever the bird started to chew furniture. The bird stopped chewing furniture, but it is now afraid of hands and will sometimes bite. Since chewing on the furniture would not have hurt the bird, George should not have hit it.

When Carla’s puppy escaped from her yard, it bounded into a busy street. Although Carla does not generally approve of physical discipline, she hit the puppy sharply with her hand. Now the puppy enters the street only when accompanied by Carla, so Carla was justified in disciplining the puppy.
Which one of the following principles, if established, would justify the judgments about George’s and Carla’s actions?

(A) When disciplining an animal physically, a trainer should use an object such as a rolled up newspaper to avoid making the animal frightened of hands.
(B) When training an animal, physical discipline should be used only when such discipline is necessary to correct behavior that could result in serious harm to the animal.
(C) Using physical discipline to train an animal is justified only when all alternative strategies for correcting undesirable behavior have failed.
(D) Physical discipline should not be used on immature animals.
(E) Physical discipline should not be used by an animal trainer except to correct persistent behavior problems.

--Now the correct answer listed is (B). The problem I have with that, however, lies in the first sentence of the passage on George. "Since chewing on the furniture would not have hurt the bird..." If it wouldn't have hurt the bird, how could (B) possibly be correct if the passage clearly indicates that it wouldn't have "result[ed] in serious harm to the animal?"

Thank you for your help in advance.

[sambeber]

12.

After several attempts to distract his young parrot from chewing on furniture, George reluctantly took an expert’s advice and gently hit the parrot’s beak whenever the bird started to chew furniture. The bird stopped chewing furniture, but it is now afraid of hands and will sometimes bite. Since chewing on the furniture would not have hurt the bird, George should not have hit it.When Carla’s puppy escaped from her yard, it bounded into a busy street. Although Carla does not generally approve of physical discipline, she hit the puppy sharply with her hand. Now the puppy enters the street only when accompanied by Carla, so Carla was justified in disciplining the puppy.Which one of the following principles, if established, would justify the judgments about George’s and Carla’s actions?

(A) When disciplining an animal physically, a trainer should use an object such as a rolled up newspaper to avoid making the animal frightened of hands.
(B) When training an animal, physical discipline should be used only when such discipline is necessary to correct behavior that could result in serious harm to the animal.
(C) Using physical discipline to train an animal is justified only when all alternative strategies for correcting undesirable behavior have failed.
(D) Physical discipline should not be used on immature animals.
(E) Physical discipline should not be used by an animal trainer except to correct persistent behavior problems.

--Now the correct answer listed is (B). The problem I have with that, however, lies in the first sentence of the passage on George. "Since chewing on the furniture would not have hurt the bird..." If it wouldn't have hurt the bird, how could (B) possibly be correct?

Thank you for your help in advance.

Because of the differences in assessment of the propriety of the actions, as bolded above.

[FAJISTE]

Wow, okay now I get it. I thought the question asked to justify George and Carla's actions, not the judgments about their actions. Rookie LSAT mistake, I feel like a noob.

Edit: Thanks for clarifying that!

[lelele]

I'm sorry i still don't really understand why B is right....
Can anyone explain it?

Thanks in advance!

[Elliott_Smith]

The key is this part:

"when such discipline is necessary to correct behavior that could result in serious harm to the animal."

In the first scenario, biting the furniture is harmless, so the discipline was unjustified. In the second scenario, crossing the street carries the potential of a dog getting hit by a car.

Hope that helps!

Edit:

You can also do this one through elimination:

A) is irrelevant, there isn't anything about types of discipline
C) does't address the content - the passage focuses on justification of the same type of discipline, not different alternatives
D) Nothing in the passage about maturity
E) Ignores that the passage justifies correcting behavior through discipline in the second scenario, but not the first.