LSAT 146 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q9

LR Question 9 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Even though she thought the informant was untrustworthy…

QUESTION TYPE: Sufficient Assumption

CONCLUSION: The journalist will reveal the informant’s identity.

REASONING:

1. Order from judge or editor ➞ reveal identity
2. The information concerns safety violations.

ANALYSIS: The word “thus” indicates the conclusion, and the word “however” and the phrase “after all” indicate reasoning. Note that “even if” is not a sufficient or a necessary condition. An argument will use “even if” to say that a factor is not relevant.

So, we’re trying to prove that the journalist will reveal their source, regardless of the accuracy of identification. So, we need some other factor. We can deduce this much from the stimulus:

Judge or editor’s order ➞ reveal identity

That gets us where we want to go, all we need is a judge’s order. The only other factor mentioned was safety. You can place this to the left of the sufficient condition to spot the gap:

Safety Violation        Judge or editor’s order ➞ reveal identity

So, if possible safety violations will cause a judge to give an order, then the witnesses’ identity will be revealed. Why place “safety violation” to the left? Because only sufficient conditions can cause stuff to happen, and we want to help make stuff happen. Placing it to the right wouldn’t let us connect “safety violations” to any sufficient condition. And it is the only factor mentioned other than accuracy, which the conclusion says is not relevant.

___________

1. The conclusion said that identification will happen even if the information is accurate. So we need something that would cover all scenarios.
    
   Also, the stimulus did not say “the journalist will reveal identity if the information is false”. Instead, it says “she will not do so unless”, which is drawn as “reveal ➞ accurate” or “not accurate ➞ not reveal”. “Reveal” is the sufficient condition, which means we can’t prove it; you can only prove a necessary condition. 
2. This sounds good, but it’s backwards. We need a sufficient condition for revealing the info. This gives us a necessary condition. It should have said “The editor will order her to reveal if the information concerns public safety”
    
   It also shouldn’t have mentioned accuracy, as the argument specifically said that factor was not relevant.
3. CORRECT. This connects the statements in the argument. The information is concerned with public safety, so there will be a judge’s order according to this answer. And, according to the stimulus, the journalist will reveal their source’s identity if a judge orders it.
4. The argument was about whether the identity would be revealed. The truth of the information was a side issue. The conclusion even specifically mentioned it was irrelevant, using “even if”.
5. This only speaks to the informant’s state of mind. That isn’t relevant: the argument is about whether the journalist will “surely” reveal their source’s identity.