LSAT 29, Logical Reasoning I, Q19, LSATHacks

LR Question 19 Explanation, by LSATHacks

QUESTION TEXT: Arbitrator: The shipping manager admits that he decide…

QUESTION TYPE: Principle – Sufficient Assumption

CONCLUSION: The shipping manager is also to blame for the delay. 

REASONING: He knew the contractor is usually late and he should have planned for it. 

ANALYSIS: This is a good argument. It was foreseeable that the contractor would be late. The manager was negligent for not planning for it.

___________

1. CORRECT. If you don’t consider foreseeable risks then you’ll have a lot of problems. 
2. The manager would agree with this principle. The stimulus argues that managers should know that contractors can be late.
3. This does sound like a good idea, but it may not always be possible. The arbitrator never claimed that lateness itself was the problem. The problem is that the manager failed to plan for the possibility of lateness. The main point of the argument is that the manager is to blame because the problem was foreseeable.
4. Does a manager directly supervise a contractor? Usually not, and the stimulus doesn’t say. This doesn’t help us blame the manager.
5. The arbitrator says that the contractor is also to blame. 

Hi, I'm Graeme Blake

Founder of LSAThacks; I scored a 177 on the LSAT.

I created the LSAT Mastery Seminars, which are part of the Ultimate LSAT Prep Bundle

If you like the explanations you're reading I'm 100% confident you'll enjoy the courses. Satisfaction guaranteed.

---------
Updates:

For updates, sign up for my email list. I update whenever I have new posts.