LSAT 115 | Section 4 | Logical Reasoning: Q19

LR Question 19 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: It is obvious that one ought to have a will stating how…

QUESTION TYPE: Necessary Assumption

CONCLUSION: Everyone ought to have a will.

REASONING: Without a will, one’s property could go to distant relatives rather than beloved friends who are not family.

ANALYSIS: I’m dead…what do I care who gets my stuff? This argument assumes people care about what happens after they die.

___________

1. This is not at all necessary. Many people leave part of their estate to charity. i.e. They give their money to people they never met. The stimulus is really arguing against the idea of an unplanned succession.
2. The stimulus is arguing that people should control who their money goes to. They could still give it to undeserving people, if they want to.
3. Even if distributions were not unjust, they might still not be the distributions people would choose in their wills.
4. CORRECT. If we negate this, we get: “People are generally indifferent to how their estates are distributed.” In that case, the stimulus’ reasons for having a will are not important.
5. Actually, it’s a necessary assumption that one’s friends have less of a legal right than distant relatives. That lesser legal right means that distant relatives can acquire property in the absence of a will.

Recap: The question begins with “It is obvious that one ought to have a will stating how”. It is a Necessary Assumption question. Learn how to master LSAT Necessary questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.