QUESTION TEXT: John: It was wrong of you to blame me for that traffic…
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.
___________
- CORRECT. Colleen knew she might miss her flight but she visited the Eiffel tower anyway. She is responsible.
- Here we don’t know if Colleen should be responsible. She didn’t know how her brother would react.
- 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.
- Here Colleen had knowledge but she didn’t do anything that would make her responsible. She can’t control everything her brother does.
- 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.
![LSAT-Facebook](https://i7s3d4t4.rocketcdn.me/wp-content/uploads/LSAT-Facebook.webp)
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions
Leave a Reply