LR Question 4 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Principle: It is unethical for someone who has bought an …
QUESTION TYPE: Principle – Justify
CONCLUSION: It was unethical for James to purchase the camera and return it two weeks later.
REASONING: It is unethical for someone to buy an item and then return it to the store after they have gotten all the use from it that they ever intended.
ANALYSIS: The principle tells us when to apply it. If someone buys something, gets all their use out of it, and returns it, then that’s unethical. Here, we know James bought it and returned it. We know he had it for two weeks, but we don’t know if he got all the use he wanted. If we learn that he did, we can correctly conclude that it’s unethical.
___________
- This tells us that James used it, but not that he got all the use he initially wanted.
- CORRECT. This tells us that James fulfilled his whole purpose for the camera, and so we can conclude with our principle that it was unethical.
- This might be unethical for a different reason, but does not allow us to apply the principle.
- This doesn’t allow us to apply our principle, because we need a situation where he got all of his use out.
- In this scenario, James hasn’t got all of the use he intended. He still needs a video camera.
Recap: The question begins with “Principle: It is unethical for someone who has bought an “. It is a Principle Justify question. Learn more about LSAT Principle Justify questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.
More Resources for Principle Questions
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Principle questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers principle questions.
This answer choice is such a hard sell, and feels like letting go off lsat rules we have learned. We have no reason to infer he used it. We’re not told he didn’t hire a videographer. His intension is different from what reality.
The LSAT not only allows but expects you to draw reasonable inferences/conclusions. The stimulus tells us James’ return was unethical, with the principle that a return is unethical when someone returns an item after getting all the use they intended to get from it.
Answer B fits that principle clearly. It tells us James bought the camera to avoid having to hire a videographer for the party and then returned it immediately afterward. From that, the only reasonable inference is that (1) he did not hire a videographer, (2) his intended use of the camera was to film the party, and (3) he returned it once that purpose was served, i.e. immediately after the party.
That chain of inferences is far more reasonable than assuming he still hired a videographer or didn’t actually use the camera at the party – those assumptions contradict the ordinary meaning of the facts given.
If any part of that feels unclear, feel free to point to it and we can unpack it together.