Kaplan LSAT Practice Question of the Day

LSAT Question for November 6th

Suppose I have promised to keep a confidence and someone asks me a question that I cannot answer truthfully without thereby breaking the promise. Obviously, I cannot both keep and break the same promise. Therefore, one cannot be obliged both to answer all questions truthfully and to keep all promises.

Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its reasoning to the argument above?

A) It is claimed that we have the unencumbered right to say whatever we want. It is also claimed that we have the obligation to be civil to others. But civility requires that we not always say what we want. So, it cannot be true both that we have the unencumbered right to say whatever we want and that we have the duty to be civil.

B) Some politicians could attain popularity with voters only by making extravagant promises; this, however, would deceive the people. So, since the only way for some politicians to be popular is to deceive, and any politician needs to be popular, it follows that some politicians must deceive.

C) If we put a lot of effort into making this report look good, the client might think we did so because we believed our proposal would not stand on its own merits. On the other hand, if we do not try to make the report look good, the client might think we are not serious about her business. So, whatever we do, we risk her criticism.

D) If creditors have legitimate claims against a business and the business has the resources to pay those debts, then the business is obliged to pay them. Also, if a business has obligations to pay debts, then a court will force it to pay them. But the courts did not force this business to pay its debts, so either the creditors did not have legitimate claims or the business did not have sufficient resources.

E) If we extend our business hours, we will either have to hire new employees or have existing employees work overtime. But both new employees and additional overtime would dramatically increase our labor costs. We cannot afford to increase labor costs, so we will have to keep our business hours as they stand.

The correct answer is (A).

(A) Parallel Reasoning

Step 1: Identify the Question Type

The phrase "similar in its reasoning" indicates a Parallel Reasoning question. Characterize the conclusion and knock out answers whose conclusion doesn't match.

Step 2: Untangle the Stimulus

The author concludes that "one cannot be obliged both to answer all questions truthfully and to keep all promises" because there could be situations in which those obligations would conflict.

Step 3: Make a Prediction

Always start Parallel Reasoning questions by eliminating any answers that do not have the proper type of conclusion. The correct answer should have an Assertion of Fact conclusion that similarly indicates that two broad obligations or claims cannot always both be met on the grounds that circumstances can exist in which they would conflict.

Step 4: Evaluate the Answer Choices

(A) is correct. It concludes that two obligations or rights—free speech and the duty to be civil—contradict each other. That is the same type of conclusion as in the stimulus.

(B) cannot be correct because the conclusion is different. This conclusion asserts that some politicians must deceive. To be the same type of conclusion, it would have to state something along the lines of, "it cannot be true that a politician is always popular and never deceives." Additionally, the conclusion wouldn't be true universally, since evidence is only about some politicians.

(C) also cannot be correct because the conclusion doesn't match. This answer choice presents a lose—lose situation; it does not state the general impossibility of always complying with two different claims or dictates. Additionally, the evidence—about what "might" occur—is too uncertain.

(D) also does not match the stimulus. The answer presents two Formal Logic statements and then uses the contrapositives to draw a conclusion. This conclusion states that one or the other must have occurred, whereas the conclusion in the stimulus says two things cannot always occur together. The difference is subtle, but important.

(E) also presents Formal Logic: If hours are extended, then employees must be hired or current employees must work overtime. The conclusion says the necessary condition is unacceptable, so the sufficient condition cannot happen. It doesn't argue that two broad rules can't always occur at the same time.

Ease Into Prep with an LSAT^® Question of the Day

LSAT Question for November 6th

Want Another Practice Question?

Ready for a Higher Score on the LSAT?

Ease Into Prep with an LSAT® Question of the Day

LSAT Question for November 6th

Want Another Practice Question?

Ready for a Higher Score on the LSAT?

Ease Into Prep with an LSAT^® Question of the Day