PT73.S2.Q12 - the chairperson should not

amd_003_123

I am trying to find a good explanation for answer choice A (correct) over answer choice D (incorrect) on PT.73 LR #1 , Q12.

The stimulus states that the chairperson should not have released the report because they did not consult any other members of the commission before the report was released.

Conclusion: Shouldn't have been released
Premise: Didn't consult

So, what we are looking for is: necessary to consult before it is released.

Answer choice A: It would have been permissible for the chairperson to release only if most of the other member had first given consent
Answer choice D : Would have been justifiable to release only if each of the commission members would have agreed to it being released had they been consulted.

I can't clearly articulate why A is superior to D... 9/10 times I think I would still choose D if I saw this question again.

Can anyone help?

https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-73-section-2-question-12/

AllezAllez21

The key phrase in D is "would have agreed." We only know that these members were not consulted, we don't know if they do or do not agree. It's possible in fact that every member does in fact agree, in which case it would have been permissible to release the report even if the other members were not consulted.

amd_003_123

But isn't "consent" (Answer A) more equivalent to "agree" (Answer D) than it is to simply being consulted (stimulus)?

Paul Caint

Ah. I remember this question well. I think it ate up like 2 minutes of my time the first go through, and then another minute on my second go through. Tough question!

Like @AllezAllez21 said, the key phrase that makes D wrong is "if each of the commission members WOULD HAVE AGREED had they been consulted."

Had they been consulted imo is the even more important phrase. It effectively means that the chairperson didn't HAVE to consult the other members, he just had to make sure that, if he consulted them, that they would have agreed.

Take this analogy:

Jimmy shouldn't have taken the cookie, because he didn't ask his mom if he could.

How could Jimmy counter this argument? He could say what the LSAC said in answer choice D - "But I knew if I asked my mom, she would say yes!"

That doesn't matter! The important thing was that you ASKED HER IN THE FIRSTPLACE! Not whether or not her answer would have been yes or not.

Answer choice A relies on a implicit, but reasonable, assumption, that one must be explicitly consulted before one can give consent. Think about it, how can I consent to something that I wasn't aware of? Remember that this is a sufficient assumption question, AKA we're looking for an answer that 100% proves the conclusion to be valid from the premises.

"It would have been permissible for the chairperson to release the commission's report to the public only if most other members of the commission had first given their consent."

Notice how this answer choice is different than answer choice D. Consent had to be explicitly given first, it could not be assumed like answer choice D allows.

Obviously then, if MOST members had to give their consent before the chairperson would be justified in releasing the report, and the chairperson didn't even consult ONE person, he obviously did not consult MOST, and thus MOST could not consent, and thus the conclusion is proven.

AKA:

Permissible to Release Report ----> Most Consented

/Most Consented -----> /Permissible to Release Report

I hope this helps, it is a very nuanced and difficult question. I think the most important thing to realize is that consent means you must have been asked (how can you consent to something you are unaware about?), while "agreed had they been consulted" allows one to assume consent without consulting.

amd_003_123

THANK YOU! This explanation definitely helps.