PrepTest 140, Section 3, Question 22
Principle: Anyone who has more than one overdue(56 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(9 more words not shown)
- ASome of the(27 more words not shown)
- BOne of the(28 more words not shown)
- CNone of the(25 more words not shown)
- DKessler was fined(25 more words not shown)
- EKessler has never(24 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Three overdue books satisfy the number requirement. They don't satisfy the whole rule.
Before fining Kessler under this principle, I'd check two more things: is at least one of those overdue books a nonchildren's book, and has Kessler been fined for overdue books before? The rule requires all those facts together. A lawyer looking at the application would ask for each missing fact rather than treating 'three books' as the end of the inquiry.
What we’re looking for
That's our prediction: an answer establishing both the relevant kind of current overdue book and a prior fine. Be careful about the rule's reach. It gives a situation in which a fine must be imposed. It doesn't say that people outside that situation can never be fined.
Working the answers
- A
This is close, but it tells us about the wrong set of books. Some books Kessler currently has on loan are not children's books. Are those particular books overdue? A doesn't say.
Suppose Kessler has three overdue children's books and one adult book that isn't due until next week. A's statement about the current loans would be true, but the rule's requirement about the overdue books would still be unestablished.
The earlier fine does satisfy the rule: being fined for returning a children's book late counts as being previously fined for an overdue book. The rule doesn't restrict the earlier fine to adult books. A fails on the current books, not the earlier fine.
- BCorrect
The adult novel is explicitly one of the books currently overdue. That establishes that at least one of the overdue books isn't a children's book. Kessler was also previously fined for returning that book late, which supplies the prior-fine requirement. Together with the three currently overdue books, every condition for imposing the fine is met.
The fact that it was the same book isn't required by the principle, but it doesn't hurt. What matters is a prior overdue-book fine and a nonchildren's book among the current overdue loans.
- C
None of the current loans is a children's book, so the overdue ones must be nonchildren's books too. But returning books late in previous years doesn't establish that Kessler was fined. The missing prior fine keeps us from applying the full rule.
- D
This establishes prior fines and describes the books involved in those earlier fines. It doesn't tell us whether any of the three books overdue now is a nonchildren's book. Information about the old overdue books cannot fill that gap.
- E
Being months overdue doesn't replace a prior fine. E explicitly says Kessler has never been fined before, so one of this principle's conditions is absent. Some other rule might authorize a fine, but this rule hasn't been shown to require it.
More Sufficient Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Sufficient Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.