Logical reasoning PrepTest 137 · Section 3 · Question 20

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Principle (Strengthen)

Stimulus Summary:
P: Should criticize works/actions of other → not Criticism seriously harm the target AND Criticizes to benefit someone else

A: Jarrett's criticism benefited no one, so he shouldn't have criticized Ostertag's essay.

Answer Anticipation:
In order to see what needs to be added to the application in order to justify the use of the principle, we first need to get the principle lined up with the application. The conclusion of the scenario from the application is that criticism shouldn't have been made, so we need to take the contrapositive of the principle:

Criticism seriously harm the target OR not Criticizes to benefit someone else → Shouldn't criticize works/actions of other

With that contrapositive taken so it lines up with the argument, we see that there are two individually sufficient conditions that would justify the application. To reach that conclusion, the application would need to establish either that the criticism seriously harmed Ostertag, or that it wasn't done to benefit someone else.

That second condition is definitely related to the premise of the argument in the application, so that condition is most likely related to the correct answer. The application establishes that the criticism didn't benefit anyone, which sounds like that sufficient condition, but there's an important difference. The sufficient condition is about the intention behind the criticism—"one [criticizes] in the hope or expectation" of benefiting someone else. That's a condition based on intent—and we know from experience the LSAT treats intent/motivation as an important consideration.

While Jarrett's criticism didn't benefit anyone else, we don't know his intentions in bringing up the criticism. To justify the conclusion, they must not have been helpful—he can't have criticized to help someone else. Let's look for an answer establishing that.

Answer Explanation:
If Jarrett knew that criticizing the essay wouldn't benefit anyone, then that individually sufficient condition from the principle applies, and the criticism shouldn't have been made. This answer justifies the application of the principle, so it's the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Justifying the application of a principle requires lining up the principle with the structure of the application (i.e., getting the conclusion of the application in the necessary condition of the principle) and then comparing the details to see what's missing. Identify those missing conditions and then find the answer that provides them. But know that the LSAT is going to do everything it can to write up answers that sound like they hit the mark while actually missing it—so, as in all Principle questions—always confirm those details with the stimulus before selecting your answer.

Incorrect. The stimulus establishes that pointing out the defects benefited no one, which includes Ostertag. As such, it doesn't matter what the necessary conditions are for benefiting Ostertag. Additionally, this answer doesn't address intent, which is key to the principle.

Incorrect. Knowing criticism might antagonize someone doesn't establish the intent behind raising it, and the stimulus doesn't discuss antagonizing the subject of the criticism—just seriously harming them, which is a different consideration.

Incorrect. While this answer does establish that there was a selfish motive behind the criticism, that doesn't mean that there couldn't also have been a motive to benefit someone else. Jarrett could have hoped to gain prestige while helping others write better.

Incorrect. The sufficient condition from the principle's contrapositive is that the criticism can't be made in the hope of helping someone other than the person leveling the criticism, not other than the person being criticized. If Jarrett didn't expect the criticism to benefit Ostertag but did expect it to benefit other members of the class, then the principle wouldn't allow the conclusion that it shouldn't have been made.