PrepTest 114

Incorrect. This answer would justify a conclusion that the author wasn't blameworthy.47764,Incorrect. As this answer establishes a necessary condition ("only if") for blameworthiness it allows a conclusion that such actions aren't blameworthy based on that condition not being met (the contrapositive). Conditionals allow us to conclude the necessary condition based on the presence of the sufficient. Additionally there was no deliberate omission here.

Incorrect. This answer would justify a conclusion that the author wasn't blameworthy.47766,Incorrect. As this answer establishes a necessary condition ("only if") for blameworthiness it allows a conclusion that such actions aren't blameworthy based on that condition not being met (the contrapositive). Additionally the facts in question were "available to anyone" not just the author.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
Situation — A biography leaves out bad facts about a politician that were available when the book was written, but the author didn't know them.
Judgment — The biographer is blameworthy for these omissions

Answer Anticipation:
Strengthen (Principle) questions generally present a situation that the author draws a judgment on, and the correct answer connects the details of the situation to the judgment. Interestingly, in this stimulus, the judgment is presented more or less as a principle—that last sentence states what makes the biographer's actions blameworthy. However, in stating that it's ignorance "of this kind" the author is referring back to an earlier idea, so we should flesh that out to anticipate our answer.

Here, the conclusion is that the author is blameworthy because of ignorance of negative details of a politician's life that were "available to anyone" when the book was written. So the correct answer should establish that a biographer is blameworthy for leaving out available facts even if (as was the case here) she wasn't aware of them.

Answer Explanation:
This answer matches the stimulus. The author did omit facts that were widely available at the time and so she should be blamed for any reader misperceptions of the politician just as the argument states.

Key Takeaway:
Knowing how conditionals can be used to justify arguments is key for many questions on the LSAT but it's key for almost all Strengthen (Principle) questions. A conditional statement guarantees the presence of the necessary condition if the sufficient condition is present. As such a principle that's framed as a conditional can justify a conclusion that matches with its necessary condition based on premises that trigger the sufficient condition. As we saw here answers in these questions will frequently present necessary conditions for the term in the conclusion which can't justify that conclusion (it would justify the opposite conclusion once the contrapositive is taken).

Know what conclusion you're tasked with justifying in these questions and consider only answers that have that term (and not its negation) in the necessary condition.