PrepTest 102, Section 2, Question 25
Jack's aunt gave him her will, asking him(93 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(15 more words not shown)
- ADuties to family(12 more words not shown)
- BViolating a promise(10 more words not shown)
- COne must choose(19 more words not shown)
- DWhen faced with(15 more words not shown)
- EA promise becomes(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Jack promised. Doesn't that still matter when he dislikes what the will says?
His aunt asked him to make it public, and he agreed. Even if George would waste the money, I can understand objecting that Jack is substituting his own judgment for his aunt's wishes. It was her money, and the promise was to carry out her instruction.
The passage gives us a reason Jack goes the other way: his mother would use the money to help herself and others, while George's spending would benefit nobody. Let's accept those predicted effects. We don't have to invent a bad habit for George or question whether Jack really knows what will happen.
The question now asks for a principle that would require Jack to act as he did. That's stronger than merely allowing him to break the promise. We need a rule that makes withholding the will the required choice, even if our initial reaction favored keeping his word.
What we’re looking for
I'd look for something like “choose the action that benefits the most people,” or a rule against choosing waste over a beneficial use. Count the beneficiaries under the facts we're given: George's use benefits zero; the mother's benefits her and others. Even if “others” meant just one more person, that would already be two versus zero.
Working the answers
- A
His mother is family, but so is his aunt. A rule favoring family duties over duties to outsiders doesn't decide between helping his mother and keeping his promise to his aunt. George's being outside the family doesn't erase the family member to whom Jack made the promise.
- B
We don't know whether anyone would learn that Jack broke his promise. More importantly, B tells us when breaking a promise is forbidden. It doesn't require Jack to withhold the will. Even if nobody found out, the rule's silence about that situation would not become a command to break the promise.
- C
This is tempting because his mother's use benefits some people and harms no one. But look at the other half: C requires an alternative that harms someone while benefiting nobody. George's spending benefits nobody, but the passage doesn't say it harms someone. Lack of benefit isn't automatically harm, so we can't establish the comparison this rule requires.
- DCorrect
Jack must choose the option benefiting the greatest number of people. Withholding the will allows his mother to benefit herself and others. Publishing it gives the money to George, whose use benefits no one. Under D's rule, the first option is required. The rule supplies a reason to choose it despite our initial concern about the promise.
- E
Removing the promise's binding force would let Jack choose not to publish the will. It wouldn't require him to make that choice. He could still voluntarily honor his aunt's wishes. The question needs a rule that selects withholding the will as obligatory, and E only removes one reason against it.
More Sufficient Assumption questions
- PrepTest 102, Section 4, Question 18Sufficient Assumption
- PrepTest 102, Section 3, Question 18Sufficient Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 10, Question 1Sufficient Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 12, Question 4Sufficient Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 13, Question 1Sufficient Assumption
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Sufficient Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.