PT50.S2.Q12 - one can never tell whether

BinghamtonDave

https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-50-section-2-question-12/
Hey 7Sagers, I just did this question and did almost everything right, but ultimately chose (E). I understood there to be 2 gaps,the first between: ~being able to tell ulterior motive——>~possible to tell whether an action is moral/ and the second gap being: ~being able to tell an action is moral——> should evaluate the consequences > morality. I took the last link in this chain (should evaluate the consequences) as the major conclusion. So I pre-phrased my answer to anticipate some iteration on the second link (or it’s contrapositive), thinking that what I wanted to build towards with the selection of a principle is something that would allow the major conclusion to properly stand.

Like several other 7Sagers, I usually write down why I am eliminating answer choices. I recognized (A) as the contrapositive of the first gap and didn’t eliminate it at first. B-D introduced new ideas or something we didn’t need. I eliminated (E) with my notes reading “Not what I need.” I recognized (E) as wrong, but (A) as simply something restated, So opted (with reservations) for (E). I now know a glimpse of what it must feel like to score 40 points but lose the game hahaha. I did almost everything correct and understood what was going on, but didn’t get the correct answer.

My questions about this question are the following: If we are asked to find something to “justify the reasoning,” wouldn’t any choice that leaves one of the 2 gaps unfilled not really “justify” much? I mean, I get that it says “most,” but aren’t we at least looking for something that justifies the Major Conclusion rather than some subsidiary minor premise/major premise link? Are there any sufficient assumption/pseudo sufficient assumption questions (that you are aware of) in which we will be forced to choose between bridging the gap between a minor premise/major premise at the behest of bridging the gap between a major premise/major conclusion? Are there questions in which adding a sufficient assumption or principle to the wrong gap nets the wrong answer?

runiggyrun

I'll start with the end of your post: For a true SA, you'd never have to choose between two gaps - there will only be one, and the correct answer will plug it.
For a pseudo sufficient assumption like the one you're talking about "which one does the most to justify the reasoning", I'm not aware of any that would make you choose between two "plugs" that correctly fill two gaps in the logic. In logical reasoning a gap is a gap. A gap between a premise and a sub-conclusion is just as important as a gap between a sub-conclusion and a final conclusion. If you're trying to get a flight from point A to point B, forgetting to screw back a couple of bolts after servicing the landing gear (mistake close to the beginning) is going to be just as bad as miscalculating the landing trajectory by a few meters (mistake close to the end). LSAT writers wouldn't make you choose between the two.
In this case, the 4 wrong answers don't fill any of the gaps, so even though A doesn't make the argument airtight, it still does more to justify it than the other choices.
So, if you have two leaks in your roof, one the size of a football, rain pouring through, and one the size of a penny, some water dripping in, and of your five kids one is watching TV, one is listening to music, one is blowing gum bubbles, one is playing on his cell and one has his finger stuck in the little hole, that last one is the one "doing the most to stop the water getting in the house".

BinghamtonDave

Thank you so much for your response!