Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 32.2K All Categories
- 27.1K LSAT
- 16.5K General
- 5.1K Logical Reasoning
- 1.3K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 72 Podcasts
- 193 Webinars
- 9 Scholarships
- 193 Test Center Reviews
- 2K Study Groups
- 108 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.4K Specific LSAT Dates
- 11 June 2024 LSAT
- 1 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 23 January 2024 LSAT
- 37 November 2023 LSAT
- 41 October 2023 LSAT
- 12 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 2 August 2024 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 4.8K Not LSAT
- 3.9K Law School Admissions
- 11 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 580 Technical Problems
- 275 Off-topic
76.4.11: A person who knowingly brings about misfortune...
aaabbbccc
Alum Member
From the stimulus, I got two conditional statements:
1) knowingly brings about misfortune --> should be blamed
2) not knowingly brings about misfortune --> should not be blamed
But because of the "for example" part, am I supposed to add "could not have reasonably have foreseen it" to the sufficient part of the 2nd cond'l statement I wrote above?
Also, Can anyone please explain why (A) is wrong?
Can I interpret "it did not occur to Riley" in (A) as "not knowingly brings about misfortune?"
1) knowingly brings about misfortune --> should be blamed
2) not knowingly brings about misfortune --> should not be blamed
But because of the "for example" part, am I supposed to add "could not have reasonably have foreseen it" to the sufficient part of the 2nd cond'l statement I wrote above?
Also, Can anyone please explain why (A) is wrong?
Can I interpret "it did not occur to Riley" in (A) as "not knowingly brings about misfortune?"
Comments
You’ve got #1 right…If one Knowingly brings about misfortune --> Blamed
But, #2 the stim puts in a “some” situation. /K –some-> /B which leaves the door open for some to be blamed even if they /K.
To make logical determinations about “ /Blame” we can only assess by comparing something to the example ”if the person could not have reasonably foreseen the misfortune coming."
Misfortune Not Reasonably Foreseen --> /B
In (A) it seems to me … had Riley “thought about it” it would have occurred to him –misfortune-. So I would think Riley could/should have seen this coming…which takes him out of the running of the only sufficient condition we have to go on that leads to /B.
--I am thinking that the assumption allowed here is that when “something” can be “realized” when “thought about” then that “something” is “reasonably foreseeable.”--
(B) says Sis had no idea nor could have foreseen the misfortune..that’s sufficient for /B which is what (B) concludes. Correct.
(C) concludes Blamed. The sufficient condition we are given to Blamed is Knowingly. Although he had some concerns, Gougan knew nothing for sure. No good.
(D) Maybe someone else is to blame…who knows? Very off-track from the principle. Bad ac.
(E) needs us to assume Kapp is a reasonable person. We don’t know whether she is or not. We cannot logically conclude anything. Wrong.
Hope this helps.