PrepTest 133, Section 3, Question 15
It was misleading for James to tell the(50 more words not shown)
The argument relies on which(5 more words not shown)
- AIf the chair(20 more words not shown)
- BThe chair of(23 more words not shown)
- CJames thought that(26 more words not shown)
- DJames thought that(21 more words not shown)
- EThe draft proposal(24 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What exactly did the chair endorse: the proposal she saw, or whatever James later decided to submit?
Her approval came with a condition. The draft she saw had to include all the recommendations James would ultimately present to the committee. In plain terms, he couldn't add unreviewed recommendations and then treat her endorsement as covering the entire final package.
But did he add anything? That's the missing fact. If the final proposal contained only recommendations already in the draft she saw, the condition described here wouldn't give us a reason to call his statement misleading. If the final proposal included something she hadn't seen, the condition would fail.
What we’re looking for
The argument simply announces that James misled the committee. For the assumption question, we need the missing draft-to-final comparison: some of the recommendations he submitted were absent from the version the chair had reviewed. Had she seen everything he eventually recommended? That is the comparison we need to settle.
Working the answers
- A
Whether the committee is likely to implement an unendorsed proposal doesn't determine whether James accurately represented the endorsement. He could mislead them about it even if they would accept his ideas without it. A concerns the committee's decision, while the argument concerns the truthfulness of James's description of the chair's support.
- B
The chair need not actively oppose every recommendation she hasn't seen. She might later like an added recommendation very much. But possible future approval doesn't satisfy her stated condition that the draft she saw contain all the recommendations being submitted. Lack of endorsement isn't necessarily opposition.
- C
This supplies a possible motive: James thought the endorsement was needed to get the committee to act. We don't need to know why he made his statement to evaluate whether it was misleading. The same statement could misrepresent the chair's support whatever James hoped to gain from it.
- D
James's guess about what the chair would endorse doesn't establish what she had actually endorsed. He might expect her to approve the whole proposal, or he might not. Neither belief resolves whether the final recommendations satisfied the condition attached to her approval.
- ECorrect
The chair hadn't seen all the recommendations James ultimately submitted. That means the final proposal failed the condition she placed on her endorsement, so James could not accurately present her conditional approval as endorsement of that whole proposal. Without this difference between the draft and the submitted recommendations, the argument hasn't explained why his statement was misleading.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.