LSAT 134 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q22

LR Question 22 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Moralist: A statement is wholly truthful only if …

QUESTION TYPE: Principle – Application

ANALYSIS: There are two rules in this principle.

A statement is fully truthful only if:

1. It is true, and
2. The speaker isn’t trying to deceive.

So if either of those is missing, the statement isn’t fully truthful.

A statement is a lie if either:

1. The speaker intended to deceive, or
2. The speaker realizes they were misunderstood and refuses to clarify.

The easiest way to approach this question is to check each answer against those two rules. Look for the one where the judgment matches the moralist’s definitions exactly.

___________

1. This violates the first rule. A statement can only be fully truthful if it’s true. Even if Ted was being honest, a false statement can’t be wholly truthful.
2. This violates the second rule. A statement is a lie if it’s intended to deceive. It doesn’t matter whether the deception actually works. Tony intended to deceive, so he was lying.
3. To conclude that a statement isn’t wholly truthful, we need to know it’s either: (1) untrue, OR (2) intended to deceive. We know Siobhan’s statement is true. So, to correctly make this conclusion, we’d need to know whether she intended to deceive, which this answer doesn’t give us. So we can’t conclude whether it’s wholly truthful or not.
4. CORRECT. Walter may have technically worked without pay, but he used the phrase to deceive the employer. That meets the criteria for a lie.
5. This contradicts the rule about lies. A statement is a lie if it’s intended to deceive, full stop. The fact that the guide would later clarify if needed doesn’t change the fact that he intended to deceive in the first place.