Logical reasoning PrepTest 149 · Section 4 · Question 18

Incorrect. Whether his cousin would want to be misled about the plant closing is out of scope of the argument. What is established as mattering to the conclusion that Sanderson's action (or lack of action) was morally wrong is whether his cousin actually was misled.

Incorrect. The actions of others don't factor into the established rule that would allow the determination that Sanderson's behavior was morally wrong, so this answer is out of scope.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Intentionally misleading someone → Lying → Morally wrong
Morality of lying by omission = Morality of lying through a statement
Sanderson heard someone say the plant was closing. He intentionally didn't tell his cousin, knowing his cousin would think the plant would stay open. So Sanderson did something morally wrong.

Answer Anticipation:
The argument does present a conditional that lets us reach a conclusion that something is morally wrong—if it intentionally misleads someone, then it's lying and thus morally wrong. It also addresses that not telling someone something is the same as telling them something, as long as withholding information is intended to mislead.

Here, we know that Sanderson intentionally didn't tell his cousin something, and he knew that not telling his cousin that he heard about the plant closing would lead to his cousin believing that the plant would stay open—in other words, if the plant were closing, his cousin would be misled by not hearing otherwise. So where's the gap?

Well, Sanderson did something intentionally, but in order for that to be morally wrong, he must have intended his cousin would end up misled. In order for that to happen, Sanderson must have believed that the plant was actually going to be closed. Here, it's only established that he overheard someone "say" it was going to be closed. Sanderson might have thought the person was wrong, or misinformed. This argument relies on Sanderson believing what he overheard—if he didn't, then his withholding that information from his cousin wasn't done with the intent to mislead.

Taking a step back—there are a lot of details and moving pieces in this stimulus. However, any time an argument brings up what someone thinks, believes, or says, you should start to think about how that subjective premise interacts with the rest of the stimulus. Additionally, any time intent is brought up, the subjective beliefs of the person taking the action are also relevant. Here, the plant closing isn't a fact—someone saying the plant was closing is. They could be wrong or lying. And a necessary part of Sanderson's action being morally wrong is that he intended to mislead his cousin—in other words, he had to believe that his lack of telling his cousin what he heard would lead to his cousin drawing a wrong conclusion.

There's a lot of subjectivity in this argument, and the correct answer should connect one of the gaps.

Answer Explanation:
In order for Sanderson's action to be morally wrong, it needs to be established that he intentionally misled his cousin. If he didn't believe that the plant was closing, then he didn't intend for his cousin to end up with the wrong conclusion in thinking that the plant would stay open.

Key Takeaway:
Any LSAT argument that brings up what someone thinks, says, or believes, or brings up intent as part of a rule, leaves itself open to that aspect of the argument being flawed because of people lying, being wrong, or doing something that leads to an unintended outcome. Focus on these issues when you see them!

Incorrect. It's rare that you'd need to assume something would have happened in a different scenario for an argument to work. Even if Sanderson would have done the right thing had his cousin asked him, he could still do the wrong thing in the situation where his cousin didn't ask him.

Incorrect. The stimulus doesn't establish any type of personal gain as a requirement or sufficient condition to acting morally wrong, so this answer is out of scope.