LR Question 10 Explanation, by LSATHacks
QUESTION TEXT: Ms. Sandstrom's newspaper column describing a strange…
QUESTION TYPE: Sufficient Assumption
CONCLUSION: Ms. Sandstrom should pay for the damage if she could have reasonably expected that the column would lead to the damage.
REASONING: Sandstrom’s newspaper led to damage on the Mendels’ farm.
ANALYSIS: Don’t bring your outside assumptions about the legal system to this question. The stimulus doesn’t tell us that we have any system set up to make people pay for the damage they cause.
The correct answer tells us that there is such a system and that people in Ms. Sandstrom’s position should pay.
The wrong answers don’t tell us whether anyone should ever pay for anything.
___________
- CORRECT. The argument doesn’t mention when and if anyone needs to pay damages. This clears that up and tells us that people should pay for damages they should have expected.
- This tells us that we should pay for damages “only if.” That’s a necessary condition: it tells us when we shouldn’t pay for damages. It doesn’t tell us when we should pay for damages, if at all.
- This doesn’t tell us that Ms. Sandstrom should pay. The stimulus doesn’t even say if we have a legal system that covers this sort of thing.
- This doesn’t tell us Sandstrom should pay.
- But why should she pay? There’s nothing here that tells us she has a legal or moral obligation.
Free Five Part LSAT Email Course
Hi, I'm Graeme Blake
Founder of LSAThacks; I scored a 177 on the LSAT.
I created the LSAT Mastery Seminars, which are part of the Ultimate LSAT Prep Bundle
If you like the explanations you're reading I'm 100% confident you'll enjoy the courses. Satisfaction guaranteed.
---------
Updates:
For updates, sign up for my email list. I update whenever I have new posts.
I don’t understand why it is not D. The stimulus states that “Thus, Ms. Sandstrom should pay for this damage if, as the Mendels claim, she could have reasonably expected that the column would lead people to damage the Mendels’ farm.”
If we want a sufficient condition, then saying that Ms. Sandstorm KNEW that it would incite trespassing and damage, then from the stimulus, she must pay.
I guess my question really is: why do we need a “system” for the correct sufficient condition when we have the exact sufficient condition needed?
Sandstrom’s knowledge is not, by itself, sufficient. The argument is missing a link that would show that knowledge of harm makes you responsible for compensation.
Even if we take D to be true, all it leaves us with is that Sandstrom knew her column would lead to damage. The argument says this means she should pay – but that is assuming answer A is true (that knowledge of potential harm makes you responsible).
I think you’re misunderstanding the question a bit. It isn’t “which answer, if true, would make Sandstrom liable to pay”. There is a gap in the argument’s reasoning, and answer A must be assumed in order to fill the gap. In fact, if we don’t assume A, then there is no link at all to show that her knowledge should lead to payment.
I hope this makes sense!
Hello,
For answer B, when you say “only if” tells us we shouldn’t pay for damages are you concluding that from the contrapositive of: Pay for damages one action’s lead others to cause –> one expected action would lead others to cause damage? Or do you diagram “only if” similar to “unless,” where it introduces the necessary term and negates the sufficient?
Thanks,
The diagram for B is: Pay for damage –> one expected damage
So contrapositive would be: Didn’t expect damage –> don’t pay
It’s only a way to let us conclude we shouldn’t pay. We need an answer that tells us when to pay.
Hopefully that clears up how to draw only if. I’m not sure which way you’re thinking of unless, but you can use the drawing above to draw parallels.