PT29.S1.Q19 - arbitrator: the shipping manager

Hi guys! I wanted some insight into why A qualifies as a right answer for this question.

The argument is saying that the manager should be blamed/is responsible for the project's delay because he was aware that the contractor often runs late and should have planned for this possibility.

The designated correct answer, "a principle that underlies the argument," is that a manager should take foreseeable problems into account when deciding things.

While I recognize the logic that makes this answer correct, I take issue with its specific language. Saying that a manager "should take foreseeable obstacles into account" does not necessitate that /a manager should in fact be blamed if they do not take such obstacles into account,/ which is the logic piece that would plug the hole. Specifically, the word "should" cannot be reasonably assumed to mean "must, otherwise blame/responsibility is accrued," and it fails to accomplish that on multiple fronts.

Should is an opinion word and does not guarantee certainty of execution, or lack of execution. Furthermore, even if one was to equate "should" with some form of "must," "must" alone would exclude the possibility of an event not happening, making it impossible to address the implications of it not happening.

Is there a LSAT-specific reading of "should" that alters the meaning of the question?

If not, why would it be incorrect to read "should" as "ought to"/"would benefit from," thus making "ought to take foreseeable problems into account" insufficient as a principle that justifies the manager being /blamed/ for not taking them into account?

Thanks for the read I really appreciate any thoughts you all may have!

https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-29-section-1-question-19/