Subscription pricing
I am approaching this question as a pseudo-assumption Q, how an I translate to lawgic?
Jarrett-->should not have criticized (premise)
Pointing out defects benefitted no one (conclusion)
???? Stuck at this point....
Thanks in advance!
https://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-60-section-3-question-20
0
3 comments
Elegant and essential distinction, Runniggyrun.
I would add a modification to the explanation proposed by @ga4842993
The principle as stated in the argument is actually
C-->/H & knowing/expecting BSOTO
So, you can get to /C two ways:
H-->/C
or
/(knowing BSOTO)-->/C
In English: if the criticism harms someone, OR if you don't hope/expect it to be useful you shouldn't do it.
That second premise can be achieved in a couple of ways: either you know it will be useless, or you simply don't know that it will be useful.
The argument gives us /BSOTO (we know the criticism wasn't useful, because the errors were so glaring anybody could see them, so no benefit was derived from pointing them out), but it doesn't tell us that Jarrett KNEW that. You need the knowledge part to match the principle, and that's what answer A gives us.
Here's My Take:
C = Criticize
H = Harm
BSOTO = Benefit Someone Other Than Oneself
Principle:
C--> /H & BSOTO
Application:
There is an error in Jason’s criticism if he did so knowing that it would not benefit someone other than himself. This is what A says.
Does this help?