Logical reasoning PrepTest 119 · Section 4 · Question 3

Incorrect. It's established that Robin knew her offense was illegal. On the LSAT, you can't "know" something that's false, so Robin's offense was illegal, and this answer is thus contradicted.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts

Question Type:
Must Be True

Stimulus Summary:
Robin - Can't tell right from wrong; can tell legal from illegal
Robin's crime - She knew it was illegal; she didn't know it was morally wrong

Answer Anticipation:
This stimulus is interesting in that it talks about what Robin knows—she knows legal from illegal, but not right from wrong. That means that she can tell if an act she performs is illegal or not, but not if it's right or not, as we saw with the offense in the second line.

From this, it must be the case that moral and legal aren't the same thing. If they were, then Robin could determine right from wrong by determining if something is legal or not, and then "translating" it over to morality. Let's find an answer stating that.

Answer Explanation:
The stimulus notes that it's a "fact" that Robin's offense was morally wrong, so this answer is supported. It's not as complicated as our anticipation, but since it's explicitly stated, it's correct! Note that answers that are explicitly stated can serve as correct answers in Must Be True questions—don't rule something out because of it.

Key Takeaway:
DON'T eliminate an answer that directly restates something from the stimulus in a Must Be True question. While this can feel like it's not an inference, that doesn't matter—if it repeats something that was said, then it must be true.

Incorrect. What is excusable is out of scope, as the stimulus never talks about that or the "eyes of the law."

Incorrect. There's no indication as to what could have been, so this answer is unsupported.

Incorrect. There's no indication that Robin's able to learn this now, so this answer is unsupported.