LSAT 128 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q25

LR Question 25 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Although withholding information from someone who would find …

QUESTION TYPE: Necessary Assumption

CONCLUSION: Jane should inform Jason that his supervisor is displeased with his work.

REASONING:

1. Withholding painful information is sometimes justified, but never if the person receiving it would benefit from knowing the information.
2. Even if it would be painful for Jason to know this, it would allow Jason to improve his supervisor’s opinion of his work.

ANALYSIS: The principle is that you can never withhold information if the other person would benefit from knowing it.

The stimulus then applies it to Jane and Jason. If Jason knew this information, he’d be able to improve his boss’ opinion. So the conclusion is that Jane should tell Jason.

This assumes that improving his boss’ opinion of his work is a benefit to Jason. The argument doesn’t explicitly prove that Jason would benefit – it just assumes it.

Hence, the necessary assumption and correct answer choice will explicitly state that Jason would benefit by improving his boss’ opinion of his work.

___________

1. This goes too far. You only need to show that Jason would benefit from knowing. The argument doesn’t require that his situation must worsen without the information.
   Negation: If Jane does not tell Jason, his situation will not worsen.
2. The argument doesn’t rely on whether or not Jane is the only person who knows or the only possible source. It just says she should tell him because (presumably) he’ll benefit from knowing, not that she’s the sole messenger.
   Negation: If Jane does not tell him, Jason could still find out.
3. Gratitude is irrelevant. The principle isn’t that the person receiving it will be happy, just that they’ll benefit.
   Negation: Jason will not be grateful for the information.
4. There’s nothing in the argument to suggest that knowing is the only way he could improve.
   Negation: Jason cannot improve his supervisor’s opinion unless he learns that his supervisor is displeased.
5. CORRECT. Exactly – the argument assumes that improving his supervisor’s opinion is a benefit for Jason. The negation of this would destroy the argument. If improving opinion wouldn’t benefit Jason, the entire justification for why Jane should tell him collapses.
   Negation: Jason would not benefit from being able to improve his supervisor’s opinion of his work.