LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

Get expert LSAT preparation and law school admissions advice from PowerScore Test Preparation.

 Administrator
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 8919
  • Joined: Feb 02, 2011
|
#28394
Complete Question Explanation

Assumption. The correct answer choice is (C)

In this stimulus, the author concludes that Sanderson committed a morally wrong act by failing to
tell his cousin that he had overheard someone say that a certain factory was going to close. To reach
this conclusion the author compares Sanderson’s act to the act of lying, which the author defines
as “making a statement with the intention of misleading someone.” Although Sanderson did not
actually lie, since he did not say anything, the author believes that Sanderson’s failure to tell his
cousin is morally no different than lying. This is because the author applies a rule stating that there
is no moral difference between stating something and failing to state something if both are done
with the same intention. In Sanderson’s case, the author says that Sanderson knew that if he did not
tell his cousin the factory was closing, then his cousin would assume that the factory was going to
remain open. Applying the rule that failing to state is morally no different than stating if done with
the same intention, the author concludes that Sanderson’s failure to tell his cousin about the factory
was morally wrong.

The author has made an assumption to reach this conclusion, relying on the fact that Sanderson
intended to mislead his cousin. However, all we know is that Sanderson overheard someone saying
that the factory was going to close. Just because someone said the factory was going to close does
not mean that it was in fact going to close. And, more to the point, it does not mean that Sanderson
believed that the factory was going to close. It could be the case that Sanderson dismissed what
he overheard as idle speculation. If so, his failure to tell his cousin about the factory gossip is not
morally equivalent to lying, because there is no evidence that Sanderson intended to mislead his
cousin.

The question stem identifies this as an Assumption question. Since there is no new or “rogue”
information in the conclusion, this is a Defender style Assumption question. Our prephrase is that the
correct answer choice will relate to the author’s assumption that Sanderson thought the factory was
going to close.

Answer choice (A): The author did not address the impact of the cousin wanting or not wanting to
know about the factory closing. The only rule we have to apply to the facts is that Sanderson’s action
was morally wrong if he intended to mislead his cousin. The cousin’s desire for the information is
irrelevant to the conclusion.

Answer choice (B): This answer choice has to do with the impact of Sanderson’s failure to tell his
cousin, and not with the morality of Sanderson’s action. If someone else told the cousin about the
factory, then Sanderson’s decision not to tell his cousin about it had no real impact, since the cousin
learned from another source. However, the cousin’s knowledge is irrelevant to Sanderson’s decision,
which he made “knowing that if he withheld this information, his cousin would assume [the factory]
would remain open.”

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice, because it goes to the issue of intending to
mislead. If Sanderson did not believe that the factory was going to close, then his act was to not tell
his cousin something that he did not believe to be true. In fact, under that scenario, Sanderson would
have been lying if he told his cousin that the factory would be closing.

Answer choice (D): This hypothetical is irrelevant to the conclusion. The fact of the matter is that the
cousin did not ask Sanderson about the factory.

Answer choice (E): Here, the answer choice provides a motive for Sanderson to lie to his cousin, but
the conclusion does not require that Sanderson had a motive to lie.
 alexmcc
  • Posts: 22
  • Joined: Aug 02, 2018
|
#49626
Hello D gave me some trouble. Why exactly is D irrelevant? I understand in the back of my mind why but I can't put it into words. I think I used the passage's definition of lying in answer choice D instead of the dictionary definition, so the Negation Test did weaken the argument to me.

And I passed over C too quickly.
 Drost
  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: Aug 16, 2018
|
#49671
Hello, I chose D and understand why D is wrong, but could you explain more in depth why C is right?
 Vaidehi Joshi
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 23
  • Joined: Aug 16, 2018
|
#49672
@alexmcc, @Drost:

Okay, here is a bit more on why "C" is right:

If we break down the stimulus into the logical order of arguments, we get the following:

necessary premise, GIVEN: Sanderson intentionally did not tell his cousin about overhearing someone say that the factory would close, knowing that if he withheld this information, his cousin would assume it would remain open.
necessary premise, GIVEN: making a statement with the intention of misleading someone is lying.
necessary premise, GIVEN: lying is morally wrong.

conclusion: this was morally wrong.

uncessary, but given, premises:
- it was Sanderson’s failing to state something that misled his cousin.
- there is no moral difference between stating and failing to state if they are done with the same intention.

How do we KNOW the conclusion follows from our given premises? We don't! They are necessary, but not sufficient in themselves. We need something more to make the logical jump from "Sanderson intentionally told his cousin something" (premise) --> "intentionally misleading someone is lying" (premise) --> "lying is morally wrong" --> "this was morally wrong" (conclusion)
Ask yourself what is missing in this chain:
how do we know "it" (lying) was morally wrong? Well, we know lying = misleading. But was Sanderson misleading? We know he was intentionally TELLING, but don't assume that we also know he was intentionally MISLEADING. that's not given, that's an assumption. That's what's missing. That should be your prephrase.
Answer choice C states this necessary extra piece of the logical chain:
(C) Sanderson believed that the factory would in fact be closing.
This is equivalent to saying, "Sanderson wasn't just telling his cousin something on purpose, he was MISLEADING him on purpose, because he thought the factory would be closing when he made his cousin believe it wouldn't be."

That's our winner.

Does this help clarify?

And if you are ever doubtful, you can do the assumption-negation test. NEGATE the correct answer choice, C. If then the entire stimulus's argument fails (i.e., the conclusion no longer holds up), then that's our answer!
So, if we do that here, negating (C), would give us:
Sanderson did NOT believe that the factory would in fact be closing (he thought it would remain open).
Well, if he genuinely thought it would remain open, then he couldn't have told his cousin this with the intention of misleading him! Right?
Thus, the entire argument fails. This is how we know (C) is indeed our correct answer.
 alexmcc
  • Posts: 22
  • Joined: Aug 02, 2018
|
#49799
Vaidehi, thanks for your explanation. Breaking down the chain into givens and trying to isolate gaps of reasoning makes more sense for me than it did before!
 Drost
  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: Aug 16, 2018
|
#49826
Thank you for the clarification!
 okjoannawow
  • Posts: 17
  • Joined: Mar 04, 2019
|
#63508
Hi,

I was wondering, should I generally be suspect of hypotheticals for assumption questions? Or is this one a case-specific scenario?
 Adam Tyson
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 5153
  • Joined: Apr 14, 2011
|
#63850
I think you should approach all of Logical Reasoning with a healthy dose of skepticism, okjoannawow! That said, there is nothing especially problematic about hypothetical situations in a stimulus if they are used properly. The thing you always need to ask yourself is whether the hypothetical situation described is sufficiently related to the conclusion. Does it illustrate the rule, or is it an exception to the rule? Are there other factors to be taken into consideration? If you approach all arguments with a skeptical eye, you will be more likely to spot potential problems, and that prepares you for all sorts of questions, including assumptions (something left out or a potential weakness), weaken (attack the problem), flaw (describe the problem), strengthen (help fix the problem), and justify (completely fix the problem).
 na02
  • Posts: 31
  • Joined: Mar 19, 2019
|
#71079
Hi, I initially picked D right off the bat, but looking over it, I see why C is the correct answer (i.e., when I did the negation test).
But I'm still having a hard time eliminating D.
I pictured the argument as saying:
1. What Sanderson did was lying, which is morally wrong
2. Saying something with the intention to deceive and not saying something with the intention to deceive is the same thing

And for some reason, I thought the assumption would be "So his not saying something was the same thing as lying" which drew me to D.
Could anyone please help clarify where exactly D goes wrong? Because if I negate it into "If his cousin had asked him, Sanderson wouldn't have lied" it still seems like it would make the conclusion problematic (i.e., that #2 is then down the drain).

Thank you,
Nicole
 Adam Tyson
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 5153
  • Joined: Apr 14, 2011
|
#71328
Actually, Nicole, that negation of answer D does NOT destroy the argument. So what if Sanderson would have told the truth if asked? He wasn't asked, and he didn't tell, and per the author his staying silent was a lie. Here's an analogy:

Speeding is illegal, even if you don't get caught doing it. Charmaine saw no police on the highway, so she drove way over the speed limit. She did not get caught. What she did was illegal.

Do I have to assume that if she HAD seen a cop, she would have sped anyway? Nope! Her behavior was illegal regardless of what she might have done differently if she had seen a police car.

One more way to eliminate D, and that is to recognize that the author doesn't have to assume anything about what WOULD have happened under different circumstances. He only has to make assumptions about what DID happen in THIS case. He had to assume that Sanderson kept quiet in order to deceive his cousin.

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

Analyze and track your performance with our Testing and Analytics Package.