LSAT 115 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q4

LR Question 4 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Marie: I gave the cashier at my local convenience…

QUESTION TYPE: Method of Reasoning

CONCLUSION: Marie claims that keeping the money was not morally problematic. Julie claims Marie should not have kept the money.

REASONING: Marie notes that the shopkeeper did not give her the money because of anything Marie did which was morally wrong.

Julie shows that it is not morally acceptable to keep something given to you by mistake, and she uses an analogy to prove her point.

ANALYSIS: It is possible to do wrong by omitting to do something which you ought to do. That’s Julie’s point. She uses an analogy to get it across.

___________

1. Julie disagrees with Marie’s principle. Not having caused a situation is not sufficient for the situation to be morally acceptable.
2. Julie said “nonsense” in response to Marie. It doesn’t sound like she accepts her conclusion.
3. CORRECT. This is a fancy way of saying “analogy”.
4. What problem does Julie face? No problem is mentioned. That alone should prevent you from choosing this answer choice.
5. Julie does not reserve judgment: she blatantly tells Marie she was wrong.

Recap: The question begins with “Marie: I gave the cashier at my local convenience”. It is a Method of Reasoning question. Learn more about LSAT Method of Reasoning questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.