LR Question 22 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Principle: Anyone who has more than one overdue…
QUESTION TYPE: Principle
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.
Recap: The question begins with “Principle: Anyone who has more than one”. It is a Principle question. To practice more Principle 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 immediately eliminated B because it mentions only one of the overdue books isn’t for children whereas the necessary condition was that *some* (more than one) of the overdue books aren’t for children. Am I reading it wrong? I still don’t see how we can justify the application of the principle w/o knowing at least two of the overdue books aren’t for children.
We don’t need to know that at least two books aren’t for children since “some” can refer to one (some = 1-49 out of 100). When you read B in conjunction with the “Application” in the stimulus, you’ll see that one of the three books he has out is not a children’s book, and he was previously fined. So this abides by the principle.
for choice 3(c), I figured that the first condition doesn’t work neither since it says “out on loan” and not “overdue.”
Good observation, but you have to consider the application as well. The application does say that Kessler has three overdue books. We have to combine that info with the answers.
Note: This is an old comment but I wanted to clarify the point.
Hi,
I originally chose C (or option 3 in your explanation) and understand why this is incorrect. However, I eliminated the correct answer because of the use of book singular when discussing why Kessler was fined. In the principle I noticed the phrasing “has previously been fined for overdue books” and concluded that the fine needed to be administered in a case of more than one book being returned late. I guess this is a case of me being a bit of a pedant but wanted to get your thoughts on the matter. Thanks!
“has previously been fined for overdue books” can include the singular. One of those quirks of English. Specifically, the way English is used for official policies like this.
Regarding choice one, the principle uses the word some in relation to the overdue books in a similar manner to the answer choice. Why does “some” mean at least 1 in the principle, and 0-3 in the answer choice. I can see how I got caught in using the questions wording in the answer, but in this case, it appears that meanings are too fluid.
Hi Peter,
Actually, in (A), it’s not the word “some” that’s the key – it’s the fact that (A) does not show that Kessler has any overdue books out at all. Kessler currently has some books out on loan from the library, this we know for sure, but we don’t know if any of them are overdue!
Hope that helps!