Self-paced
Helen: Conclusion It was wrong of my brother Mark to tell our mother that the reason he had missed her birthday party the evening before was that he had been in a traffic accident and that by the time he was released from the hospital emergency room the party was long over. ██████ █████████ ████ ██ █████ ███ █████ ██ █████ ████ ███████ ██████ ███ █████ ███ ████ ██ ████ ███████████████ ███ ██████ █████████ ███ █████ ███ ██████
Q21 Is Super Rare
·
(And Q20 Is Normal)
This stimulus serves both Q20 and Q21. Q20 is a straightforward Main Conclusion question, and Q21 is a super-rare exception to the heuristic that the LSAT never asks us to question premises. Helen’s argument is perfectly valid – it’s just based on a ridiculous premise:
P1 (Ridiculous*): Saying false things is always morally wrong.
P2: [Mark’s big ol’ lie] was false.
________
Con: It was morally wrong of Mark to tell [this big ol’ lie]. ← (There's the answer to Q20, btw.)
*If you don’t see the silliness in Premise 1, note that it makes being honestly mistaken morally wrong. Like “Oops I said our meeting was tomorrow, but I misspoke – it’s actually the day after tomorrow. THEREFORE I AM BAD.”
Being in good LSAT shape means getting super weirded out when you find a seemingly valid argument in the stimulus of a Flaw question. Usually when that happens, you’re just missing something subtle. My take on a realistic mindset to bring into the answer choices is something like:
This argument probably does have a flaw somewhere that I’m just not seeing. But if it really is valid, I guess the absurd premise about how all false statements are morally wrong is a weak point.
Or you don't recognize any flaws or weaknesses up front, and you only accept the “absurd premise” flaw when none of the answer choices point out something you missed.
21.
The justification Helen offers for ███ ████████ ██ ██████ ████████ ██ ████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ███ █████████████
a
ignores an important █████ ███████████ ███████ ██████ █████████ ████ ██ █████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ █████████ ████ ███ █████ ██ ██ ████
(A) points to a very real moral distinction that doesn’t apply to the situation in the stimulus – the distinction between being mistaken (saying something false) and lying by omission (failing to say true things).
Mark doesn’t lie by omission – he just straight-up lies.
The distinction that’s actually at play in the stimulus is the one between being mistaken and lying (saying things you know to be untrue).
b
confuses having identified ███ █████ ██ █ █████ ██████ ████ ██████ ██████████ ███ ███████████ ██ █████ █████ ███ █████ ██████ ██ ████ ██████
(B) describes a different flaw (assuming one option is the only option) that doesn’t occur in the stimulus. Here’s what that flaw would look like in an alternate-universe version of our stimulus:
One reason Mark missed the party is that he forgot about it. Therefore, he must not have gotten into a traffic accident.
c
judges behavior that ██ ███████ ██ ████████████ ███████ █████████ ██ █████ █████████ ████ ███ ████████ ██ ███████ ████ ██ ████████ ████ ██ ██████ ████ ███████
(C) points to the philosophical principle that “ought implies can” – you can’t be blamed for stuff that’s outside of your control.
That doesn’t apply to this stimulus, though. Mark certainly had the power to tell his Mother the truth.
d
relies on an ████████████ ██████ ██ ████ ██ ███████ ███ ████ ████ ███ ██████████ ████ ███ █████████ ██████ ████ ███ ████████ ████████
The conclusion does logically follow from the premises!!! That’s the whole crazy thing about this question!
But Helen also doesn’t appeal to pity. The pity piece is probably meant to resonate with what Mark does as he tells his fabricated tale of woe.
e
attempts to justify █ ████████ █████ █ ██████████ ████ ██ ██████ █ ███████ █████████ ████ ██████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ██ ███████ ████ ████ ███ ██████████ ████████
The argument does this. Usually complaints like this aren’t relevant to the concepts the LSAT cares about, but it’s relevant here, baby!
Mark’s big ol’ lie is the particular case. The general principle is the claim that saying false things is always wrong.
It’s easy to see why Mark telling his poor mother an overt lie is bad. It’s less easy to see why it’s morally wrong to say “It’s 3:05pm!” when your watch is fast (unbeknownst to you) and it’s actually 3:04pm.