PrepTest 133, Section 1, Question 15
Counselor: Hagerle sincerely apologized to the physician for(22 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(10 more words not shown)
- AIt is good(18 more words not shown)
- BIf someone tells(20 more words not shown)
- CSomeone is owed(28 more words not shown)
- DIf one is(18 more words not shown)
- EA person should(24 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
You apologized to the physician. Does that mean you owe me an apology too?
The counselor says yes because Hagerle told both people the same lie. That may sound fair, but we need a rule connecting the apology already given to a second apology now owed. Receiving something and being owed it are different facts.
What we’re looking for
The question asks for a principle that supports the counselor's reasoning. I'd look for this: if you sincerely apologize to one person for a lie, you owe a sincere apology to someone else you told the same lie. That would take us from what Hagerle did for the physician to what the counselor claims Hagerle should do next.
Working the answers
- A
Calling an apology good doesn't establish that a particular person is owed one. It could be good to make an apology without being required in every situation. A also depends on being capable of sincerity, and we haven't established Hagerle's ability to apologize sincerely to the counselor. It doesn't give us the requested obligation.
- B
This connects two debts: either both people are owed apologies or neither is. But where do we establish the first debt? We know the physician received an apology, not that the physician was owed one.
Someone could voluntarily apologize even when no apology was required. B would allow neither person to be owed an apology in that situation, so the counselor's conclusion still wouldn't follow. C uses the fact we actually have—an apology received—instead of assuming an obligation we haven't established.
- CCorrect
The physician has already received a sincere apology from Hagerle for the same lie told to the counselor. Under this principle, that makes the counselor owed a sincere apology from Hagerle as well. The person, the lie, and the prior sincere apology all line up with the stated facts.
- D
Being able to apologize sincerely to the physician doesn't establish being able to apologize sincerely to the counselor. Hagerle might feel differently toward the two people or about lying to each of them. Since we don't know that D's condition is met for the counselor, it can't establish the duty the counselor claims.
- E
This restricts when someone should make an apology in the first place. It doesn't say that, once one apology has been given, every other recipient of the lie is owed an apology. And Hagerle having apologized doesn't prove Hagerle followed this rule or can sincerely apologize to everyone. E doesn't get us from the known action to the required second apology.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.