LSAT 104 | Section 4 | Logical Reasoning: Q21

LR Question 21 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Words like “employee,” “payee,” and “detainee” support…

QUESTION TYPE: Method of Reasoning

CONCLUSION: If -ee words refer to one person out of two, then they’re referring to the person the action is aimed at.

REASONING: “Employee”, “payee”, etc. all speak of someone affected by something another person did. “Absentee” seems to be an exception.

But we can narrow what we’re talking about to exclude words like absentee that only refer to one person’s action.

ANALYSIS: This is a good argument, if a bit subtle. The author has narrowed the definition of what he’s talking about. He ends up only referring to words that end with -ee and describe a situation with two people.

So absentee is excluded by this new definition.

___________

1. The author agrees that “absentee” doesn’t refer to two people. So he redefines what he’s talking about.
2. The author agrees that absentee is a powerful counterexample. If he were forming a definition for all -ee words, absentee would wreck the definition. So he restricts himself to only those -ee words that refer to two people.
3. The author doesn’t say “absentee” is an exception. Instead, he redefines his generalization to exclude “absentee”.
4. CORRECT. The author restricts his definition to those -ee words that refer to two people.
5. Not at all. An “absentee” isn’t affected by an action, and they don’t have anyone’s action directed at them.
    
   The author deals with “absentee” by excluding it from the words he’s defining.

Recap: The question begins with “Words like “employee,” “payee,” and “detainee” support”. It is a Method of Reasoning question. Learn how to master LSAT Method of Reasoning questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.