No Borders and Binaries

What am I talking about?

This question propped up during one of my torturous LSAT review sessions:

Q: In order to avoid causing inadvertent harm to their neighbors, householders ought to evade politely or refuse to answer a stranger’s questions unless the stranger provides some proof of being a government official pursuing official inquiries, in which the questions should be answered truthfully.

In which one of the following situations does Mary act in accordance with the principle above?

An INCORRECT Answer Choice -
(D) Immigration officers, showing valid identification and asserting that they were on official business, asked Mary whether a neighbor who belonged to a local church that offered sanctuary to refugees lacking visas had sheltered any such refugees. Mary gave an evasive answer and warned her neighbor.

I wonder how a student who has undergone the experience of la migra showing up at her or his doorstep, or taking and deporting her/his family or friends would react to this answer choice and even question. Not positively for sure. It’s an answer choice that should have been avoided given the current climate — The LSAT is smart about these things at most times; heck, they even use gender neutral names (of course there have been times I have had to cringe and just assume that Sheila is a biological woman), but there are an overwhelming number of pro-environment, pro-diversity, even anti-government passages so this one came as a shocker. Anyway, mad props to Mary!

My hands were TWITCHING to pick this answer choice just to record my objection. Of course, on the real test, that means missing a point. Is it worth it? Have you ever picked a wrong answer knowingly as a conscientious objector?

Yeah, alright, I am going back to studying.

“In a mad world, only the mad are sane” - Akira Kurosawa.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!