PT73.S2.Q12: Consent versus consult

Ashley2018-1

My issue with this stimulus is about the term consent versus consult. If ANY of the members had said "No" to the release of this report, would that still mean the chairperson consulted them?

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

cwlawlaw

Yes, that would mean that the chairperson consulted them.

Here, consent and consult are different things. To have been consulted is necessary for giving consent. (But giving consent is not necessary for having been consulted. This is why a member could say, "No" and still have been consulted.)

So if we know the other members weren't consulted, then they didn't give their consent. According to A, if they didn't give their consent, then it would not have been permissible to release the report.

Ashley2018-1

Ok, so whether or not any of the members said "Yes" or "No," that still counts as consulting them and so the chairperson wouldn't have been justified in releasing the report?

Lime Green Dot

Here, as @cwlawlaw mentioned, we are to understand that consent --> consult.

The CHP wasn't justified in releasing the report b/c if we take [permissible --> consent --> consult], then of course not a single member could have given their consent, let alone most, since not a single one was consulted. Hence, the CHP's action was permissible.

So consulting a member is an act that's independent of how a member thereafter responds, whether with a "yes," "no," or mehhh (i.e., their response is irrelevant to knowing whether or not the CHP talked about it with them in the first place; he either did consult with them or didn't). Justification for releasing the report here entails a yes-most, but if there's no consent at all to begin with, that's never going to happen. If this was your understanding, then I'd say you're on point!

(Aside: I can imagine a scenario where consent doesn't necessarily imply consult. What if none of the other members cared to be asked about any reports and would have been just as happy to give their consent if merely told a report existed? They wouldn't have to necessarily be consulted in this case. All this to say, it's not 100% airtight as a SA, but (A) is still gonna be our closest fit.)

Ashley2018-1

@"Lime Green Dot" said:
Here, as @cwlawlaw mentioned, we are to understand that consent --> consult.

The CHP wasn't justified in releasing the report b/c if we take [permissible --> consent --> consult], then of course not a single member could have given their consent, let alone most, since not a single one was consulted. Hence, the CHP's action was permissible.

So consulting a member is an act that's independent of how a member thereafter responds, whether with a "yes," "no," or mehhh (i.e., their response is irrelevant to knowing whether or not the CHP talked about it with them in the first place; he either did consult with them or didn't). Justification for releasing the report here entails a yes-most, but if there's no consent at all to begin with, that's never going to happen. If this was your understanding, then I'd say you're on point!

(Aside: I can imagine a scenario where consent doesn't necessarily imply consult. What if none of the other members cared to be asked about any reports and would have been just as happy to give their consent if merely told a report existed? They wouldn't have to necessarily be consulted in this case. All this to say, it's not 100% airtight as a SA, but (A) is still gonna be our the closest fit.)

So the important thing is whether the chairperson ASKED ANY other member, not their actual responses (Yes to releasing the report or No or I don't care)

Technically if any of them had said yes or no or i don't care, that would count as consulting wouldn't it? And so A would still be correct answer in any of those three scenarios...I guess it would be weird if the rule were "only if" most of the members said "no" or stated that they didn't care...but correct nonetheless right?

Thank you! As succinct as always!

Lime Green Dot

Actual response is important to determining whether the act of publicizing the report would still be considered impermissible. That's b/c we still have [most consent --> permissible] to think about. But in terms of getting to majority consent, if, prima facie, there was no consulting, then of course there could be no consent. In this sense, for this question as phrased, the rest wouldn't matter.

If instead, we knew the CHP had consulted with the members, we'd have to evaluate further at this point and ask (and care about) whether there were mostly "yes's". Here, we would care, b/c if there weren't mostly yes's, we of course still end up with permissible.