LSAT 6 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q9

LR Question 9 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Until he was dismissed amid great controversy, Hastings…

QUESTION TYPE: Necessary Assumption

CONCLUSION: Hastings must have been disloyal.

REASONING: Hastings wasn’t incompetent. If his dismissal was justified, then Hastings must have been disloyal or incompetent.

ANALYSIS: This sounds like a good argument. Except…we aren’t told that Hastings’ dismissal actually was justified. If it wasn’t then it’s possible that Hastings was neither disloyal nor incompetent.

___________

1. CORRECT. Yes. If his dismissal wasn’t justified then we have no idea whether he was disloyal.
2. It’s quite possible for a low-ranking officer to be considered a great intelligence agent.
3. This isn’t necessary. It’s only necessary that in this particular case it was justified to dismiss a disloyal person (Hastings.)
4. Not necessary. This answer choice is very broad: it could refer to anyone in any job. The sufficient-necessary statement in the stimulus was only about Hastings.
5. In the stimulus those are necessary conditions. It is not a necessary assumption that they are also sufficient conditions. This answer choice also refers to anyone, while the stimulus is talking specifically about Hastings’ situation.

Recap: The question begins with “Until he was dismissed amid great controversy, Hastings”. It is a Necessary Assumption question. Learn how to master LSAT Necessary questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.