LSAT 137 – Section 3 – Question 20

LSAT 137 - Section 3 - Question 20

October 2012

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:40

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
PT137 S3 Q20
+LR
+Exp
Sufficient assumption +SA
Link Assumption +LinkA
A
51%
167
B
14%
157
C
11%
161
D
10%
161
E
14%
162
153
163
173
 +Hardest 146.416 +SubsectionMedium

J.Y.’s explanation

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

Principle: One should criticize the works or actions of another person only if the criticism will not seriously harm the person criticized and one does so in the hope or expectation of benefiting someone other than oneself.

Application: Jarrett should not have criticized Ostertag’s essay in front of the class, since the defects in it were so obvious that pointing them out benefited no one.

Summary
Jarrett shouldn’t have criticized someone else’s work. Why not? Because according to the principle’s contrapositive, you should never criticize someone else’s work if either (1) the criticism will seriously harm that other person or (2) you don’t expect the criticism to benefit anyone else. And in Jarrett’s case, the criticism didn’t benefit anyone at all.

Missing Connection
Jarrett’s criticism didn’t benefit anyone, but it’s unknown whether he expected his criticism to benefit anyone. And the principle in the stimulus is concerned with whether there’s an expectation of benefiting others. (Whether or not the criticism actually does benefit others is irrelevant.) So we can make the argument valid if we assume that Jarrett didn’t expect his criticism to benefit others.

A
Jarrett knew that the defects in the essay were so obvious that pointing them out would benefit no one.
He wasn’t under the impression that his criticism would benefit anyone. This triggers the contrapositive of the principle: if you don’t have the hope or expectation of benefiting someone else with your criticism, you shouldn’t criticize. Thus Jarrett shouldn’t have criticized.
B
Jarrett’s criticism of the essay would have been to Ostertag’s benefit only if Ostertag had been unaware of the defects in the essay at the time.
The principle is concerned with whether there’s an expectation of benefiting others with one’s criticism. Whether or not the criticism actually does benefit others is irrelevant. (B) is about actual benefits, not expectations, so it has no effect on the argument.
C
Jarrett knew that the criticism might antagonize Ostertag.
Antagonizing is irrelevant to the argument. Any sufficient assumption must show that Jarrett either didn’t expect to benefit anyone with his criticism, or else the criticism seriously harmed Ostertag. “Might antagonize Ostertag” doesn’t trigger either of those conditions.
D
Jarrett hoped to gain prestige by criticizing Ostertag.
This says he hoped to benefit himself, but benefiting oneself is irrelevant to the argument. The principle is concerned with whether there’s an expectation of benefiting others. That Jarrett hoped to benefit himself tells us nothing about whether he also hoped to benefit others.
E
Jarrett did not expect the criticism to be to Ostertag’s benefit.
The principle is concerned with whether one expects to benefit someone other than oneself. (E) merely tells us that Jarrett didn’t expect to benefit Ostertag. To trigger the principle and reach the conclusion, we’d need to know that he didn’t expect to benefit anyone at all.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 137 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply