PrepTest 146, Section 3, Question 12
Advertisement: When you need a will, consulting a(78 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(11 more words not shown)
- AA lawyer's knowledge(14 more words not shown)
- BDo-it-yourself software cannot(16 more words not shown)
- CMany people who(12 more words not shown)
- DIn the majority(19 more words not shown)
- EThere is some(15 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A valid will isn't necessarily the will you want. I can understand paying someone to make sure it fits your circumstances, just as you want a doctor to address your illness rather than hand you any valid prescription.
But is the lawyer always worth the extra cost? Suppose someone has five possessions and wants to leave them all to one person. Maybe a simple will handles that perfectly well. And even valuable advice could come with an absurdly high price. The advertisement moves from identifying a potential benefit to insisting that paying for it is always worthwhile.
What we’re looking for
We're looking for an assumption the argument needs. I'd expect something defending the need for that individualized help.
Working the answers
- A
The analogy doesn't require the two professions to be equally complex. It compares paying for advice suited to a particular situation with merely obtaining a valid document or prescription. Lawyers could have less complex expertise than doctors while individualized legal advice still offered an advantage worth paying for.
- BCorrect
What if the software could customize the will just as well as a lawyer? Then the advertisement's reason for paying the extra money would disappear. You could obtain the supposedly special benefit through the cheaper option. B rules out that objection by preserving the lawyer's advantage in tailoring the will.
This doesn't resolve every concern about price or prove that every person needs extensive customization. A required assumption needn't finish the whole argument. B protects the particular distinction on which the argument relies.
- C
People could be satisfied with a software-generated will even if a lawyer would improve it in a way worth paying for. Satisfaction doesn't establish that all their needs are met, and the argument doesn't depend on many software users being unhappy. Its claim concerns the value of personalized advice.
- D
This covers valid wills generally, including wills prepared by lawyers. The argument doesn't require most valid wills to be inadequate. Many could meet their owners' needs precisely because they were tailored well. The argument needs a reason to prefer the lawyer's service, not a broad claim that most valid wills fail.
- E
The medical comparison illustrates why advice fitted to your situation can matter. It doesn't depend on a way to obtain a prescription without consulting any doctor. A doctor's expert help could matter beyond the mere validity of a prescription whether or not another route to prescriptions exists.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.