LR Question 20 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Many workers who handled substance T in factories…
QUESTION TYPE: Principle – Strengthen
CONCLUSION: The manufacturer is at least partially responsible for the illnesses caused by substance T.
REASONING: The manufacturer didn’t know substance T was harmful, but it could have investigated the safety of substance T.
ANALYSIS: You may have already thought this was a good argument. Shouldn’t companies investigate the safety of substances they use? Well, that’s a principle you’re using to judge the situation. On most principle questions, you just have to say “the company was wrong not to do the thing they didn’t do”. This is the difference between “is” and “ought”. The company didn’t investigate – that’s a statement of fact. The company should have investigated – that’s a moral principle.
(The right answer is slightly different. It says you should be held accountable if the harm could have been prevented. And the manufacturer could have prevented the harm by investigating.)
Remember, you want to prove the manufacturer responsible. You want a sufficient condition for proving guilt. No wrong answer provides a sufficient condition for guilt.
___________
- The argument isn’t talking about compensation. It’s talking about who is guilty.
- This adds a necessary condition for holding the manufacturer responsible. Necessary conditions never help prove an argument. They make it harder to hold someone responsible – there are now more conditions to fulfill.
- The manufacturer wasn’t aware of the health risks, so this doesn’t help.
- This doesn’t help us prove that the manufacturer was responsible. It just tells us a factor that isn’t relevant in determining responsibility.
- CORRECT. The illnesses were definitely preventable – the manufacturer could have investigated the health effects of substance T. This proves that the manufacturer was responsible.
Recap: The question begins with “Many workers who handled substance T”. It is a Principle – Strengthen question. To practice more Principle – Strengthen questions, have a look at the LSAT Questions by Type page.
More Resources for Principle Questions
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Principle questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers principle questions.
I get why choice E is correct but what threw me off was the word “innocent”… who said these people were innocent? maybe they were all criminals. This choice made it seem as if he would only be responsible had they been innocent… am I wrong for thinking this way?
You’re right to read the answer choice closely, but you’re limiting your interpretation of “innocent” to just one definition. Innocent can also just mean free from responsibility/error in a particular scenario. You have to consider the most popular definitions of a word before eliminating an answer choice based on one definition of a word’s not matching up with the language in the stimulus.
I’d also argue that this stimulus and answer choice ask you to make the common sense assumption that the workers are not in same way criminal. True, we’re not given direct evidence that they are completely innocent, but we’re also not given any indication that they’re criminals. Occasionally, LSAC does ask you go beyond the letter of the stimulus to make common sense assumptions that any reasonable college-educated student would make.