PrepTest 144, Section 2, Question 22
A tax preparation company automatically adds the following(70 more words not shown)
The argument's conclusion can be(10 more words not shown)
- AIf the e-mail(18 more words not shown)
- BIf e-mail messages(24 more words not shown)
- CA disclaimer that(26 more words not shown)
- DAt least some(24 more words not shown)
- ESome of the(17 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A disclaimer can't undo advice to break the law. Let's accept that rule here. If the body of the e-mail recommends something illegal, the footer provides no protection.
But does that cover every situation? What about an e-mail that doesn't recommend anything illegal? Perhaps someone might still misunderstand the advice or accuse the company of encouraging an offense. Could the disclaimer protect the company then?
What we’re looking for
The passage says legal protection is the disclaimer's only possible purpose. To prove it has no purpose, we need to close off the situations the argument hasn't addressed. My concern is that there could be a use for the disclaimer outside the case of plainly illegal advice. Let's see whether an answer rules that out.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
At first, 'does not need legal protection' may seem different from 'the disclaimer serves no purpose.' But connect it with the premise that legal protection is the disclaimer's only possible purpose.
There are two cases. If the e-mail suggests something illegal, the disclaimer cannot protect the company. If the e-mail doesn't suggest anything illegal, A says the company needs no legal protection. So the disclaimer either cannot provide the needed protection or provides protection the company doesn't need. That covers both sides and supports the conclusion that it serves no purpose.
- B
Substantial penalties would make protection valuable, but we are already told the disclaimer offers no protection when the e-mail suggests illegality. B doesn't address whether the disclaimer could help in the other case. Knowing how serious a penalty might be doesn't fill that gap.
- C
A reader's habit of ignoring the footer doesn't establish its legal effect. Something a client overlooks could still matter to the company's legal position. The argument concerns protection for the company, not whether repeat recipients pay attention to the disclaimer.
- D
Clients following the advice tells us that the body of the e-mail can influence their behavior. It doesn't tell us whether the separate disclaimer protects the company. We need a claim about the disclaimer's possible purpose, not simply evidence that some advice is acted on.
- E
Some clients being willing to evade penalties doesn't establish what the company advised them to do or what protection the disclaimer supplies. Their willingness to break the rules leaves the missing legal-protection case unresolved.
More Sufficient Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Sufficient Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.