PrepTest 120, Section 1, Question 7
Terry: Months ago, I submitted a claim for(70 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(6 more words not shown)
- AConsumers should avoid(17 more words not shown)
- BConsumers should attempt(12 more words not shown)
- CIn judging the(19 more words not shown)
- DIn judging the(16 more words not shown)
- ECorporations ought to(17 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
I'd be frustrated too. Terry has submitted the claim repeatedly and still hasn't been paid. Deliberate avoidance is one possible explanation. But is it the only one?
Maybe Terry keeps using the wrong form or sending it to the wrong place. Even if Terry has done everything correctly, the company could be disorganized: people lose the paperwork, messages go unanswered, and nobody takes responsibility for processing the claim. Repeated mistakes can be evidence of persistent incompetence, not necessarily a deliberate plan to avoid paying.
What we’re looking for
Terry acknowledges that anyone can make a mistake, then treats repetition as enough to establish intent. That's the step I don't trust. We're asked for a principle Terry's reasoning violates, so find a rule against making that accusation while the non-deliberate explanation remains open. A rule Terry could have followed perfectly well won't answer the question.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
This says not to attribute dishonesty when incompetence could explain the behavior. Terry does exactly that: the failure to pay is treated as deliberate avoidance even though a badly run claims process could produce the same result. We don't have to establish that the company is innocent or incompetent. The remaining possibility is enough to put Terry's reasoning in conflict with this rule.
- B
Nothing shows that Terry failed to try to stay informed. In fact, Terry contacted the company and followed up repeatedly. The problem is the inference about the company's intentions, not an established failure to learn about its behavior.
- C
Terry is relying on personal experience with the company. That fits this rule rather than violating it. More fundamentally, the issue is whether that experience proves deliberate avoidance, not whether someone else's experience should have been the main source of a service rating.
- D
This says mitigating circumstances are irrelevant when judging a corporation. Terry doesn't violate that by failing to consider an innocent explanation; if anything, the principle points away from the caution we want. We aren't given a case in which Terry excuses corporate misconduct because of mitigating circumstances.
- E
This directs corporations to provide relevant requested information. It isn't a rule about how a consumer should infer a corporation's intentions. Terry is seeking payment on a claim, and the reasoning we're evaluating is Terry's accusation, not whether the company complied with a duty to supply information.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.