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.
- CORRECT. If you don’t consider foreseeable risks then you’ll have a lot of problems.
- The manager would agree with this principle. The stimulus argues that managers should know that contractors can be late.
- 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.
- Does a manager directly supervise a contractor? Usually not, and the stimulus doesn’t say. This doesn’t help us blame the manager.
- The arbitrator says that the contractor is also to blame.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly