LSAT 69, Logical Reasoning I, Q16

QUESTION TYPE: Complete the Argument

CONCLUSION: It would be ok for Roxanne not to finish her report, assuming Luke wouldn’t expect her to finish it.

REASONING: It would be ok to miss lunch if you got sick, your friend wouldn’t expect you to be there. Roxanne’s deadline got extended.

ANALYSIS: First, you’ll want to be clear on what the analogy says. It would be fine to miss lunch. But you don’t have to miss lunch.

So this argument will claim, at most, that it would be fine for Roxanne to not finish her report. It wouldn’t be wrong for her to finish though, even though the deadline changed.

Second, falling sick and an extended deadline aren’t quite the same thing. Falling ill is a bad thing. Getting an extension is a good thing. There’s nothing stopping Roxanne from finishing on time.

So it would be ok not to finish only if Luke didn’t expect her to, just like someone wouldn’t expect a sick friend to show up.

___________

1. It would not be wrong for Roxanne to finish. She just doesn’t have to.
2. Not quite. The issue isn’t whether Luke expected a postponement. It’s whether he would be ok with her not finishing, given that there was a postponement.
3. This doesn’t match the analogy, which allows people to avoid their obligations in special circumstances.
4. CORRECT. Here we go. It’s ok for Roxanne not to finish, if Luke is fine with that.
5. It’s definitely not ‘wrong’ for Roxanne to finish. She just doesn’t have to.

---

Need help with LR? → Sign up here

Try the LSAT Hacks Course

Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly