PrepTest 134, Section 2, Question 22
Moralist: A statement is wholly truthful only if(34 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(11 more words not shown)
- ATed's statement to(34 more words not shown)
- BTony was not(33 more words not shown)
- CSiobhan did not(38 more words not shown)
- DWalter's claim to(46 more words not shown)
- EThe tour guide(47 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What would it take to call a statement wholly truthful? It must actually be true, and the speaker must not intend to deceive. Those are two requirements, not a guarantee: the moralist hasn't said that satisfying them is enough. We know what rules a statement out without yet knowing everything that would qualify it.
Then we get two separate ways for a statement to count as a lie. Intending to deceive is enough. So is learning that the statement was misinterpreted and refusing to clarify it. The speaker doesn't need to do both.
What we’re looking for
We need a judgment supported by one of those rules. I'd look for a stated intention to deceive or a known misunderstanding left uncorrected, followed by the conclusion that the statement was a lie. Don't turn the rules into a promise that every other statement is innocent.
Working the answers
- A
Ted's statement is false in the situation described: the answer tells us no one has been abducted by extraterrestrial beings. Truth is required for a statement to be wholly truthful. His lack of intent to deceive satisfies only the other requirement; it cannot rescue the failed truth requirement. A directly conflicts with the rule.
- B
Tony intended to deceive his granddaughter. That alone makes the statement a lie under the second rule. Whether she actually believed him is a different matter. An unsuccessful attempt to deceive still has the intention the moralist says is enough.
- C
We know Siobhan's statement was true, but that alone doesn't establish either judgment the answer makes. A true statement might still be intended to deceive, which would make it a lie. We aren't told her intention or any failure to correct a known misunderstanding. And the rules give ways to establish a lie, not an exhaustive list that lets us confidently declare every other statement not a lie.
- DCorrect
Walter deliberately used volunteer work to make the interviewer think he had served a socially beneficial cause. Even though he had worked without pay in his father's factory, that literal fact doesn't remove the deceptive intention. The moralist says intended deception is enough for a statement to count as a lie, so the judgment follows.
- E
The tour guide intended to deceive the tourists. That already satisfies one independent basis for calling the statement a lie. Being willing to clarify a misunderstanding doesn't undo that intention. E treats avoiding the second route to a lie as though it cancels the first, but either route is enough.
More Parallel Reasoning questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Reasoning questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.