LR Drill Set 12, Question 11
Because neighbors filed noise complaints after the last(45 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(6 more words not shown)
- AHe has made(9 more words not shown)
- BHis statements are(5 more words not shown)
- CHe has made(10 more words not shown)
- DHe is in(8 more words not shown)
- EHe has promised(10 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
He has promised two things that don't fit together.
After the noise complaints, the promoter promised no electronic amplification at the next concert. Whether that alone would solve the noise problem is a separate question; a large crowd could still be loud. The immediate problem is that he also promised a performance by Zambar, and the band won't play without amplification.
There are two ways to see the bind.
If Zambar plays on its stated terms, the no-amplification promise is broken.
If the promoter insists on no amplification, Zambar won't play, so the promised performance doesn't happen. He can honor either commitment, but he can't honor both together.
What we’re looking for
The passage says amplification will be used. Even before focusing on which promise gives way, we can predict the description the question wants: he is stuck having to break a promise. That doesn't require knowing whether he regrets it or deliberately planned to mislead anyone.
Working the answers
- A
He might wish he hadn't made a promise, but the passage doesn't report that feeling. Being in a difficult situation and regretting it are different claims. He could be unconcerned, or he might not yet understand the problem. We need the situation established by the facts, not a guess about his reaction.
- B
The problem concerns commitments about the next concert. We aren't told that he has already put on an amplified performance or otherwise acted against a promise. B treats a conflict between future commitments as an established conflict between statements and actions.
- C
“Neither” means he can't fulfill either promise. That's too strong. He could keep the band off the stage and honor the no-amplification promise, or let it play with amplification and honor the performance promise. The difficulty is doing both, not doing either one individually.
- DCorrect
Keeping one commitment requires giving up the other, given the band's refusal to play without amplification. He is therefore in a position where a promise must be broken. This describes the incompatibility without adding a claim about his feelings, intentions, or past behavior.
- E
This adds knowledge the passage doesn't give him. In fact, Zambar's requirement is explicitly unknown to the promoter. Making promises that cannot both be kept doesn't establish that he knowingly promised something he would not do. He can get into this predicament through ignorance rather than deliberate deception.
More Must Be True questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Must Be True questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.