LSAT 17 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q23

LR Question 23 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Arnold: I was recently denied a seat on an airline flight…

QUESTION TYPE: Principle (Sufficient Assumption)

CONCLUSION: Jamie concludes that the airline is not morally obligated to pay Arnold compensation.

REASONING: Arnold would have missed his flight even if it hadn’t been overbooked. The flight was cancelled due to bad weather.

ANALYSIS: This is actually a well argued issue in tort law. Can you sue someone who committed a tort even if the harm would have occurred without the tort?

Jamie is arguing that the airline should not owe any compensation since Arnold could never have caught his flight even if it was overbooked. He suffered no harm from the overbooking.

We’re trying to justify Jamie. The question stem says “An airline is morally obligated to pay compensation:” Only the two “only if” answer choices could possibly work.

___________

1. This doesn’t let us conclude that there is no obligation to pay if there is more than one reason.
2. In this case there is a reason apart from bad weather. This doesn’t support Jamie.
3. CORRECT. Yes. Arnold would have still been forced to take a later flight. According to this principle the airline is not morally obligated to compensate him.
4. This doesn’t support Arnold but it doesn’t help Jamie either.
5. This supports Arnold. He should still be compensated even though he suffered no harm.

Recap: The question begins with “Arnold: I was recently denied a seat on an airline flight”. It is a Principle question. Learn how to master LSAT Principle questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.