LSAT 102 – Section 2 – Question 25

LSAT 102 - Section 2 - Question 25

June 1998

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:13

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT102 S2 Q25
+LR
Sufficient assumption +SA
Conditional Reasoning +CondR
Rule-Application +RuleApp
Net Effect +NetEff
A
3%
157
B
3%
160
C
25%
163
D
66%
168
E
4%
161
152
161
170
 +Hardest 148.204 +SubsectionMedium

Jack’s aunt gave him her will, asking him to make it public when she died; he promised to do so. After her death, Jack looked at the will; it stipulated that all her money go to her friend George. Jack knew that if he made the will public, George would squander the money, benefiting neither George nor anyone else. Jack also knew that if he did not make the will public, the money would go to his own mother, who would use it to benefit herself and others, harming no one. After reflection, he decided not to make the will public.

Summary
Jack decided not to make his aunt’s will public. This decision was based on the following:
If the will was made public, his aunt’s money would go to someone who would squander the money, benefiting nobody.
If the will was not made public, the money would go to Jack’s mother, which would benefit her and others, and harm no one.

Missing Connection
We want to justify Jack’s decision not to make the will public. The premises concern the consequences of making the will public vs. not making the will public. We want to connect these consequences to what one should do in a way that proves not making the will public was the right course of action. For example:
When choosing between two options, choose one that benefits at least one person over one that doesn’t benefit anyone.

A
Duties to family members take priority over duties to people who are not family members.
We don’t know whether Jack has a duty to allow his mother to get the money. In addition, Jack’s aunt is a family member. So potentially there might be a duty to follow the wishes of her will. (A) doesn’t prove that Jack’s decision was appropriate.
B
Violating a promise is impermissible whenever doing so would become known by others.
Jack violated the promise to his aunt. We want to establish that his decision was appropriate. But (B) tells me when violating a promise is impermissible. It doesn’t prove when violating a promise should be done.
C
One must choose an alternative that benefits some and harms no one over an alternative that harms some and benefits no one.
We don’t know whether the alternative of making the will public “harms some.” We know that it benefits no one, but we don’t know that it harms someone. So (C) doesn’t provide a principle that applies to Jack’s decision.
D
When faced with alternatives it is obligatory to choose whichever one will benefit the greatest number of people.
Making the will public benefited no one. But withholding the will from the public benefited at least Jack’s mother. So withholding the will from the public benefited the greatest number of people. According to (D), then, Jack was obligated to withhold the will from the public.
E
A promise becomes nonbinding when the person to whom the promise was made is no longer living.
(E) establishes that Jack was not bound by his promise to his aunt. But that doesn’t establish that Jack’s decision was appropriate. Just because he was morally allowed to go against his promise to his aunt does not imply that it was something he should have done.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 102 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply