QUESTION TYPE: Principle
2+ Overdue AND Children’s Books AND Previous Fine –> Fine
APPLICATION: Kessler has more than one book overdue.
ANALYSIS: This is a straightforward conditional reasoning question. There are three sufficient conditions to establish that we must fine someone:
- At least one of the overdue books is not a children’s book
- The person has a previous fine
- More than one book overdue
Kessler meets the third condition. The stimulus says we must “justify” the application of the principle. So we need all three conditions. The right answer must show that Kessler meets the other two.
- I almost chose this. But, the second condition is that one of the overdue books is not a children’s book. This answer just says that Kessler has some books out that aren’t children’s books. Maybe all his overdue books are children’s books.
- CORRECT. This meets both missing conditions.
1. One of the overdue books isn’t for children
2. Kessler has been fined before.
Since the application contained the other sufficient condition, this answer proves the necessary condition.
- The first condition works. Since Kessler does have some books out on loan that are overdue, this answer proves they must be non-children’s. But the second condition doesn’t work. We need to know that Kessler was fined previously, not just that he previously had overdue books.
- This meets the second condition: Kessler was fined before. But this fails the first condition. We need to know that Kessler has some overdue books that aren’t children’s books.
The final bit is fluff that adds nothing (“none of the fines were for children’s books”)
- We need to know that Kessler was fined, but this answer says that he wasn’t.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly