PrepTest 115, Section 4, Question 19
It is obvious that one ought to have(52 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(8 more words not shown)
- ANo one wants(14 more words not shown)
- BOne's estate should(8 more words not shown)
- CDistributions of estates(6 more words not shown)
- DPeople are generally(8 more words not shown)
- EOne's beloved friends(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Who does the person want to inherit? The author tells us a legal rule for this question: without a will, a distant relative you've never met can have priority over a beloved friend. Picture Cousin Billy, whom you've never seen, ahead of your closest friend. I can see why someone who wants the friend to inherit would want to change that outcome.
But what if Cousin Billy is the intended recipient? Or what if the person has very little property to distribute? The opening declaration that having a will is obviously what one ought to do moves quickly past individual circumstances. For this argument, the main concern is the assumed problem with the default order of inheritance.
What we’re looking for
We're asked for an assumption the reasoning depends on. My first prediction would concern a preference for friends over distant relatives: the legal priority has to conflict with what people want for it to provide this reason to make a will. Let's look for the underlying requirement without insisting on that exact comparison in the answers.
Working the answers
- A
No one is too strong. A person could want an estate to go to someone they've never met, or want a friend to inherit first and an unfamiliar relative to inherit afterward. The argument doesn't need a universal rejection of every unfamiliar recipient. It needs a reason why leaving the distribution to the default legal order can be a problem.
- B
Deserving according to whom? The argument doesn't give a standard of merit or say the estate must go only to a deserving person. Someone's wishes could favor a friend or relative for many reasons. We don't need this additional rule about what makes a recipient worthy.
- C
The author doesn't have to establish that the inheritance laws are unjust. A legal default might be reasonable for many people and still fail to match a particular person's wishes. Wanting to specify a different distribution doesn't require condemning the entire legal arrangement as unfair.
- DCorrect
This reaches a more basic assumption than my initial friends-versus-relatives prediction: people generally care how their property is distributed. If people were indifferent, why would the relative's legal priority over the friend give them a reason to write down a different plan?
The argument relies on people having preferences that the default rules might not honor. D doesn't require everyone to choose friends over relatives, and it doesn't guarantee that every person needs to change the default outcome. It supplies the underlying concern that makes the author's reason matter.
- E
This conflicts with the legal priority given in the passage. We're told that, without a will, the distant relatives have the greater legal right. The argument recommends a will because of that rule; it does not assume the rule already favors the friends.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.