LSAT 118 | Section 4 | Logical Reasoning: Q2

LR Question 2 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: A factory spokesperson argued that the factory …

QUESTION TYPE: Parallel Reasoning

CONCLUSION: The factory shouldn’t need to clean up the polluted wetlands.

REASONING: An independent contractor is responsible for disposing of the factory’s wastewater.

ANALYSIS: This argument is saying:

• Factory wastewater polluted wetlands
• BUT disposal was handled entirely by an independent contractor
• So, factory shouldn’t be responsible

The key idea is deflecting responsibility because the actual wrongful act was carried out by someone else.

A useful way to phrase it:

“You shouldn’t hold party A responsible for conduct committed by party B when B acts independently.”

___________

1. This sounds like pretty practical advice based on concerning facts! There’s no analogy about responsibility for another party’s independent actions.
2. CORRECT. There’s harmful conduct, someone is being held responsible (parents), but the actual actors (older adolescents) act independently. So, parents should not be held responsible.
3. There’s no other independent actor here. This is just about fairness.
4. Conflict of interest reasoning. Totally different principle.
5. The stimulus never discussed the credibility of the factory. It’s about whether or not they should be held responsible.