LSAT 137 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q20

LR Question 20 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Principle: One should criticize the works or actions…

QUESTION TYPE: Principle – Application

PRINCIPLE: Should criticize ➞ no serious harm AND hope of benefitting someone else

serious harm OR hope of benefitting someone else ➞ Should not criticize

APPLICATION: We are told:

• No benefit
• Conclusion: should not criticize.

ANALYSIS: The application uses the wrong term. Lack of benefit isn’t decisive. It’s lack of the hope of benefit that matters. You can hope for something, yet fail to achieve it.

So, there are two ways to prove that Jarrett should not have criticized:

1. Showing that the criticism seriously harmed Ostertag, OR
2. Showing that Jarrett didn’t have the hope of a benefit to others.

Note that benefit to Jarrett is irrelevant. You could hope to benefit yourself and benefit others, and that would be acceptable.

___________

1. CORRECT. This fixes things. If Jarrett knew there was no benefit to others, then he had no hope of a benefit. Lack of hope of a benefit was a sufficient condition for not criticizing.
2. This talks about whether a criticism would actually be a benefit. But the condition is only about the hope of a benefit.
3. So? Antagonizing someone isn’t the same as seriously harming that person. Antagonize just means to make someone hostile to you.
4. This doesn’t matter. You might hope to get prestige for yourself yet also hope to benefit others. Only the hope of benefit to others is relevant.
5. This doesn’t matter. Jarrett might have hoped that people other than Ostertag would have benefitted from the criticism.