PrepTest 144, Section 4, Question 11
A person who knowingly brings about misfortune should(43 more words not shown)
The principles above, if valid,(12 more words not shown)
- AAlthough he would(58 more words not shown)
- BOblicek had no(51 more words not shown)
- CGougon had no(36 more words not shown)
- DWhen Dr. Fitzpatrick(50 more words not shown)
- EAny reasonable person(44 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Not knowing that something bad will happen doesn't automatically get you off the hook.
The passage gives us a definite rule for someone who knowingly causes misfortune: blame that person. “Knowingly” means knowing the outcome will happen; it doesn't require wanting that outcome.
For someone who causes misfortune unwittingly, the answer is less automatic. Some such people should not be blamed. We get one clear protection: if the person also could not reasonably have foreseen the misfortune, don't blame them.
Keep the unanswered case separate. What if a person didn't actually know, but could reasonably have seen the trouble coming? The passage doesn't give us a definite verdict on that person. We shouldn't fill in our own rule about carelessness.
What we’re looking for
We're applying these principles to a new situation. Match the facts to a rule that actually settles the conclusion, rather than choosing the person we personally feel deserves blame.
Working the answers
- A
Riley didn't think about the danger of parking in the center lane, but the answer says he would have realized it if he had thought about it. So we don't have the protection for someone who could not reasonably foresee the accident. That doesn't let us conclude from these principles that Riley must be blamed, either. It means the claim that he should not be blamed hasn't been justified.
- BCorrect
Oblicek meets both parts of the protection. She did not know that the loan would lead to bankruptcy, and she could not reasonably have foreseen that outcome. Therefore, if her suggestion leads to that misfortune, the principle tells us not to blame her. Her lack of knowledge alone wouldn't settle it; the added lack of reasonable foresight does.
- C
Gougon was concerned that the sauce might make someone ill. Worrying about a possibility isn't knowing it will happen. The rule that assigns blame applies to knowingly causing misfortune, so that rule doesn't establish C's conclusion.
- D
We don't know that Dr. Fitzpatrick should be blamed, because his lack of knowledge leaves his case unresolved without more information. And saying nobody else knowingly contributed doesn't clear everyone else: some people who act unwittingly might still be blameworthy. D makes a conclusion about who can be blamed that these principles don't support.
- E
Kapp could reasonably have foreseen the fire, but the answer asks us to assign blame even if she didn't realize what would happen. That's the case the passage leaves unsettled. A rule protecting people who couldn't reasonably foresee the result isn't a rule requiring blame for everyone who could.
More Must Be True questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Must Be True questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.