PT32.S4.Q03 - Traffic Accident

Comments

• 1 Like

  Cant Get Right Yearly + Live Member Sage ⭐ 🍌 7Sage Tutor

  March 2016 27900 karma

  So in addition to the chronology problem (which I missed on this question, so good job there) the main reason C is wrong is due to the issue of knowledge. Michiko adds the sufficient condition that “if they know that those actions risk such consequences.” So this question is asking us to trigger the sufficient assumption and conclude with the correctly corresponding necessary assumption. So to trigger the sufficient assumption, we’ve got to address this issue of knowledge. In answer C, does Colleen know that her actions risk the consequences? We just don’t know. And if we don’t know, then Answer C must go.
  
  This issue of knowledge comes up with some frequency actually, so it’s great you’re taking the time on this question to really understand it. Anytime anybody knows anything in an LSAT stim, it’s likely to be an issue in the answer choices.
• dcdcdcdcdc Alum Member

  March 2016 edited March 2016 382 karma

  Thanks for the quick reply.
  
  The sufficient condition and then the necessary condition you mentioned is as follows:
  IF people know the consequences of an action they voluntarily undertake THEN they are responsible for those consequences.
  
  I understand that C lacks the knowledge part of the sufficient condition. But let's suppose that C reads "Colleen was responsible for her automobile’s having been stolen two weeks ago, because she did not take any of the precautions that the town police recommended in the antitheft manual they published [40 years ago and Collen knew there was a high probability of car theft in the area she parked her car.]"
  
  Now our answer choice suggests the sufficient and necessary conditions are as below:
  IF people know the consequences of an action they voluntarily do NOT undertake, THEN they are responsible for those consequences.
  
  So now Collen, 1) Knows the consequences and 2) isn't being coerced. My issue here is that the answer choice clearly states that Collen "did not" do something, while our principle has the sufficient condition requiring that someone DO something. Here the consequences are actually of inaction, that is something she did not undertake.
  
  There seems to be a confusion in the stimulus that equates the consequences of an action with the consequences of inaction. In the stimulus John voluntarily UNDERTAKES driving, knows the risks/consequences and therefore is/should be responsible. What if John voluntarily did not undertake driving and knew that the risk of doing so was, let's say, not being able to take a friend to the hospital. Is he still (from the stimulus) "responsible for the consequences of actions that they [he] voluntarily undertake[s?]" He voluntarily knowingly did NOT undertake something! He fails the sufficient and the conclusion of responsibility does not follow.
  
  The more I examine this, and I got the question right and within time, I think it is just a sloppy use of action, consequence and undertake, and can get down right philosophical really. As already shown, C is really about a consequence of inaction! If we use English "inaction" = "lack of action." But the explanation of the question would have us believe that Collen's NOT(action) leads to consequences, which should be irrelevant given the stimulus's clear language on consequences of actions voluntarily undertaken. It looks like the LSAT is viewing the ACT of inaction as an ACTION. So therefore, inaction is in itself an action and that part of our stimulus becomes irrelevant. We might as well say, "something which a person does or does not do that is voluntary and has known consequences..." It seems to me that because action and inaction are equated, either the rule of failing the sufficient does not apply here, or we should just not incorporate the phrase about "action...undertake" into our logic.
  
  Put differently, it looks like C has the consequences flowing not from inaction, but the Act/action of ignoring police precautions (I'm not worried here about the sequence or knowledge issues in C). The inaction is really just the secondary result of an action. It looks like we have a special case here where inaction means the lack of action and that lacking is viewed as an act, that is, to say, an action. When we are dealing with such broad concepts as action and undertaking it seems that they are so vast as to include their own negations, which is why they are not relevant for determining the negation or satisfaction of a condition. Responsibility is in this category to a lesser extent, as determining responsibility of something, requires the involvement of that party, which we might classify as an action, therefore how can we assign responsibility for consequences of NOT(action)? Whereas, we could reason that, if John eats, then he is hungry, we can say that if John does NOT(eat), then we cannot conclude that he is hungry or NOT(hungry). The failure of the sufficient applies in simply A->B setup. However, placing action in the sufficient and then supplying an example of inaction is way more tricky.
  
  With these distinctions, it is possible to differentiate the action and responsibility in C and D, which I initially took to have similarly issues about the connection between undertaking/not undertaking an action and assigning responsibility.
  
  In D, the act (door slamming) directly leads to consequences.
  Colleen does not do the act, therefore the consequences do not follow necessarily.
  
  In C, the suggested act is precautions. We don't know the consequences of these suggested precautions; they appear just as a standalone element. The act in question is really an act of inaction (ignoring police precautions), which DOES have direct consequences. Colleen DOES undertake that act of inaction and therefore, the consequences do follow.
• 1 Like

  Cant Get Right Yearly + Live Member Sage ⭐ 🍌 7Sage Tutor

  March 2016 27900 karma

  Ok, I see what you’re saying. Maybe you’ve uncovered an additional reason that answer choice C is wrong. Wrong answers can get weird. Sometimes they’re wrong because of a single word. Other times they’re wrong for a plethora of reasons. If you understand all the reasons a really wrong answer is wrong, you’ll be more likely to catch the tricky ones. Right answers, on the other hand, are relatively restricted. The important thing to remember is that if an answer is wrong for any reason, it is wrong entirely. How you get there doesn’t necessarily matter as long as you get there. It’s great that you’re taking the time to analyze incorrect answer choices. There’s a lot to be learned there and it will contribute a lot towards your ability to eliminate wrong answer choices quickly under timed conditions. Sounds like you’re really doing it right, so keep it up and stay thorough!
• 1 Like

  dcdcdcdcdc Alum Member

  March 2016 382 karma

  Thanks! Half of my response is a means of explaining my reasons to myself and the other half is hoping others may find it useful. I see now that my initial reason for eliminating C was incorrect and that instead of failing the sufficient condition, issues such as knowledge of consequences are disqualifying in this case.
• 1 Like

  runiggyrun Alum Inactive Sage Inactive ⭐

  March 2016 2481 karma

  I believe there's no way the LSAT writers would have C as the wrong answer on the basis of the Action vs inaction conundrum. LSAT writers don't like to have answers hinging on things that are open for debate, and this clearly is.
  BTW, I'm in the camp that believes inaction is the same as action in terms of bringing on consequences, especially in the kind of situation presented where intent or motivation are similar between action and inaction.
  Whether I eat sweets before bed (action) or not brush my teeth for weeks (inaction) I'm personally contributing to my teeth rotting.
  It would be different for things like "I saw the man in the water and didn't jump in to save him" (inaction) vs "I pushed the man in the water to drown him" (action) because the motivations are wildly different.
  
  Even without the action vs inaction issue, I still don't think they would have put in C as a wrong answer without the timing mismatch, because of the knowledge issue. Knowledge is not as clearly stated as it is for A, but she could conceivably (likely?) have known the car would risk being stolen based on reading the police manual. That would have made C a "could be right if you look at it this way" answer, and wrong LSAT answers are supposed to be "it could in no way be right" answers. That's why they put in the timeframe. So we don't have to guess or interpret, we just KNOW it's wrong.
• Cant Get Right Yearly + Live Member Sage ⭐ 🍌 7Sage Tutor

  March 2016 27900 karma

  @runiggyrun said:
  BTW, I'm in the camp that believes inaction is the same as action in terms of bringing on consequences, especially in the kind of situation presented where intent or motivation are similar between action and inaction.
  

  Agreed. To me, action and inaction can be used interchangeably as decisions which cause consequences. I think it might get confusing translating it into logic though. Logically, A can definitely not used be interchangeably with A. I think this may be where the philosophical debate enters in. Thankfully, LSAT will never ever leave anything like this to interpretation!
• 1 Like

  dcdcdcdcdc Alum Member

  March 2016 382 karma

  Thanks guys. I am filing "action" under the same category as words like should, could, will, might, likely and can as requiring a little extra attention in the stimulus. I was making some great headway with eliminating answer choices that reasoned from a failed sufficient condition and this used to give me a lot of trouble, but I finally met my match on this by trying to brute force lawgic on the stimulus.
  
  It's a shame the LSAT does not provide enough time for a 30 minute philosophical discussion for each question!
• 1 Like

  runiggyrun Alum Inactive Sage Inactive ⭐

  March 2016 2481 karma

  @dcdcdcdcdc just what the LSAT was missing. Two 13hr long LR sessions ;-p