LSAT 32, Logical Reasoning II, Q3, LSATHacks

QUESTION TEXT: John: It was wrong of you to…

QUESTION TYPE: Principle – Parallel Reasoning

CONCLUSION: Michiko concludes that John is to blame for the traffic accident.

REASONING: John knew he had poor vision and chose to drive. People are responsible for the consequences of their voluntary actions [if they know that their actions risk such consequences].

ANALYSIS: The principle is: if you choose to do something and you know the risk, then you are responsible for the consequences. 

___________

1. CORRECT. Colleen knew she might miss her flight but she visited the Eiffel tower anyway. She is responsible. 
2. Here we don’t know if Colleen should be responsible. She didn’t know how her brother would react.
3. We have no evidence that Colleen ought to have been aware of the recently published anti-theft manual or if she knew what precautions to take.
4. Here Colleen had knowledge but she didn’t do anything that would make her responsible. She can’t control everything her brother does. 
5. This is a completely different situation. First, the stimulus only allows us to conclude if someone is responsible. Second, this has nothing to do with the consequences of Colleen’s actions. 

LawHub Order

LawHub Order

---