PrepTest 153

Incorrect. The stimulus already implies this about Kapp, and we don't care what other builders might have known. They didn't build the shoddy library, Kapp did!

Incorrect. Sneaky, this is a necessary assumption rather than a sufficient one. Read prompts carefully!

Incorrect. Just more support for the first premise here. This is neither strong enough nor specific enough to do the job of a sufficient assumption and fully prove the argument.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Sufficient Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Sneaky Mr. Kapp cut costs and maximized profit by building the library with inferior materials. Even if that was legal, it was wrong. Kapp is an experienced and knowledgeable builder, so he must have known his cutting corners would put people at serious risk.

Answer Anticipation:
This whole argument hinges on one question: is it wrong to knowingly put people at serious risk? Most human beings would say yes, but this is the LSAT we're talking about, so we actually need a rule that explicitly says so in order to make that determination. Look for it as the correct answer choice.

Correct Answer:
Ah, just as we anticipated! A rule that says knowingly putting people at serious risk for money is wrong. Normal human beings don't need to be told this, but LSAT NPCs sure do.

Key Takeaway:
There are an awful lot of LSAT questions designed to make you miss the correct answer just by assuming everyone's already on the same page about basic tenets of morality. Not in LSAT land! Everything has to be established by a rule to be fully valid, even stuff like "knowingly endangering others for personal profit is wrong." (Real life doesn't tend to be as neat and tidy as the LSAT. For instance, under the rule proposed by answer choice D, is it wrong to run a professional sports league?)

Incorrect. Again, a premise already says this is the case. It won't validate the argument to repeat the premises over and over in stronger and stronger terms.