Logical reasoning PrepTest 141 · Section 2 · Question 12

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Sufficient Premise

Stimulus Summary:
The chairperson didn't consult other members before release, so the chairperson shouldn't have released the report.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument has a single premise leading to the conclusion, and that conclusion is a "should" statement, so the correct answer should connect that premise to the conclusion, such as by stating:

If the commissioner didn't consult other members about releasing the report, then she should not have released it.

Answer Explanation:
This answer doesn't directly match our anticipation, but it does talk about what is "permissible," which relates to what someone shouldn't do. It also talks about consulting other members of the commission, so it's dealing in the relevant concepts from the stimulus. If we diagram this out, it states: Permissible to release → Most members first gave consent; or ~Most members first gave consent → ~Permissible to release. Since the stimulus notes that the other members weren't consulted before release, it would have been impossible for them to give consent, so this answer's sufficient condition is triggered. That guarantees that it was impermissible for the chairperson to release the report—in other words, she shouldn't have done it. This answer establishes that the premise is sufficient to justify the conclusion, so it's the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
First, a conclusion that something "should" or "shouldn't" happen needs to be directly justified, which will usually happen with an answer that uses the same language. However, there are some exceptions, such as the one we saw here—by definition, you shouldn't do something that's impermissible (though it's not the case that you should do something that is permissible). Second, the LSAT has been increasing the difficulty of these Strengthen with Sufficient Premise questions by using implied connections—connections that must be true based on the definition of the words used without being directly stated. An example of this, as noted in the first point, is that an impermissible action shouldn't be taken.

Incorrect. This answer isn't about consulting the members about releasing the report, or situations under which it is or isn't acceptable to release the report, so it doesn't address the key elements in the argument.

Incorrect. Since the other members of the commission weren't consulted, there's no information provided about whether the other members had serious reservations and thus no way to know if this answer applies.

Incorrect. While this answer could justify a conclusion that the chairperson shouldn't have released the report, there's no information in the stimulus about what the other members would have agreed to had they been consulted, so this answer choice doesn't connect to the premises.

Incorrect. Without connecting this preference to a rule about releasing the report, this answer can't justify the conclusion that the report shouldn't have been released.