Logical reasoning PrepTest 144 · Section 4 · Question 11

Incorrect. The conclusion here is that Riley's actions are not blameworthy, so it relies on the second principle. However, a sufficient condition for that principle is that the misfortune caused by the accident can't be reasonably foreseen, and this answer notes that Riley would have realized the danger had he thought about it, so this answer doesn't align with the principle and can be eliminated.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts

Question Type:
Must Be True (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:

(1) Knowingly cause misfortune → Should be blamed
(2) not Reasonably foreseen misfortune AND Unwittingly cause misfortune → Shouldn't be blamed

Answer Anticipation:
Must Be True (Principle) questions generally present us with 2 principles that justify judgments that are similar to each other, and then we need to find the answer that is justified by one of them. We want to get those similar judgments as the necessary condition and then head to the answers. And we can generally eliminate answers that don't reach a conclusion justified by the principle (i.e., a conclusion that isn't a necessary condition).

This stimulus does provide two principles—one that justifies blaming someone for causing misfortune, and one that justifies not blaming someone for causing misfortune. Those related judgments are already in the necessary condition of the principles, so there's no need to take contrapositives. Unfortunately, since both blameworthiness and not blameworthiness are conclusions that can be justified, we can't make any quick eliminations on answers that have an unjustifiable conclusion.

So we'll have to head to the answer choices, identify which principle it's appealing to (i.e., whether it concludes that an action is or isn't blameworthy), and then find the one that establishes a fact pattern that ensures the sufficient condition is met.

Answer Explanation:
The conclusion here is that Oblicek shouldn't be blamed, so it relies on the second principle. This answer establishes that Oblicek could not have reasonably known that her actions would cause misfortune, and she didn't intend misfortune (since she had no idea that her suggestion would result in bankruptcy), so her actions meet the sufficient conditions of the second principle, justifying the conclusion. This is our answer.

Key Takeaway:
Must Be True (Principle) questions are all about getting the conditional principles in a format that makes it easy to analyze answers, identifying which principle is being invoked in a given answer (if there's more than one principle in the stimulus), and then seeing if the details match up with the principle.

Incorrect. The conclusion here is that Gougon should be blamed for his action, so it relies on the first principle. To justify the conclusion, Gougon must have knowingly caused this misfortune, and while he was concerned that his action might make his guests ill, he had no reason to believe that it would, so he can't be said to have knowingly made his guests sick. Thus, his actions don't meet the sufficient condition of the first principle.

Incorrect. There are two parts to this conclusion—Dr. Fitzpatrick is to blame, and no one else is. That relies on both of the principles. However, the argument doesn't establish that Dr. Fitzpatrick knowingly caused misfortune—he didn't know that the medicine would cause high blood pressure—so this answer is incorrect.

Incorrect. Since this answer concludes that Kapp was to blame for starting the fire, it relies on the first principle. That requires the argument to establish that she knowingly caused the misfortune. However, even though any reasonable person would have known that her actions would cause the misfortune, Kapp didn't—and so she can't be said to have knowingly caused misfortune. Therefore, she doesn't meet the sufficient condition of the first conditional, and this answer can be eliminated.