LSAT 90, Reading Comprehension, Q25, LSATHacks

DISCUSSION: On this question, the right answer is an inference. That means we take two statements from the passage and combine them to form the answer.

On some questions, the problem is that inferences are too hard. But watch out for questions like this. Here, the inference is so easy, so automatic, that you probably didn’t even notice you had made an inference, so you didn’t look for it.

What I am going to teach in this explanation is how to recognize this type of obvious inference, and be aware that it is an inference. This will unlock many logical reasoning questions, such as “Principle – Justify” questions, which use the same process.

So, let’s take another argument. Let’s say I tell you this: “tomorrow, we will all die from an asteroid”. What inferences can we draw?

1. In real life: “omg, no! That’s terrible! This is the end of the world. It is a really, really, really bad thing”.
2. On the LSAC: “Hmm, a novel fact. I can’t make any inferences yet, but I’ll keep it in mind”.

You see, on the LSAT, you can’t assume outside moral principles. So the natural, obvious inference (“we’re doomed!”) is actually invalid.

But, if we add some other premise, then we can make an inference:

1. It is bad if everybody dies
2. Tomorrow, we will all die from an asteroid

Ok, now on the LSAT we can make an inference. “A bad thing will happen tomorrow!!!!”. But….that’s kind of stupid right? Like, how is this an inference? Doesn’t everybody already agree that it is bad if an asteroid kills us?

Well, yeah. But technically, in logical terms, everyone is combining the two premises above into an inference. That’s what an inference is: using two statements to infer a third one.

So, the important point I want you to take from this is: sometimes, inferences feel obvious. This happens when you have:

1. some moral intuition everyone agrees on, and (e.g. “death is bad”)
2. Some fact that intuition applies to (e.g. “we’re all gonna die”)

Ok, so how does this all apply to this question? Well, this question is about the critics in paragraph 3. They told us two things:

1. It is bad to apply criminal charges against corporations (This is the critics’ moral intuition)
2. If you apply criminal charges to corporations, then there is less deterrence, and also the public suffers and employees suffer (This is a fact)

Thus, we can combine these two and infer “the critics think it is bad if the public and employees suffer”.

This seems too obvious to be an inference? Can’t we already just kinda….know that it is bad if the public pays high prices, or if employees suffer for something they didn’t do?

Nope! Not on the LSAT. This kind of obvious inference really is an inference. You have to train yourself to look for it. Or rather, to look for when you make it automatically.

Once you know this, it is easy to spot that D is the right answer. In fact, it even has the same moral language as a principle – justify question: it is “unjust” for the public to pay.

Why go through this whole exercise? Because there are some really tricky trap answers on this question! A, B and C are all tempting. But, if you do the analysis above and spot the “automatic inference”, then you know exactly what to look for and can skip over the traps.

If you got this question wrong, you should practice using Principle/Justify questions on Logical Reasoning to get good at this process. Notice that the correct answer uses moral language, “unjust”, exactly the way principle/justify questions do. More and more, the hardest RC questions take directly from LR.

___________

1. This answer mixes up paragraphs. The only reference to shareholders influencing corporations is in paragraph 4, and it is the author who mentions it. This question is asking about people who “support the criminal prosecution of individuals within corporations” – those were the critics, not the author!
   However, it is hard to imagine anyone agreeing with this answer. “Influence” is an incredibly weak word. If shareholders could influence corporations even 0.000001% of the time then this answer would be false. You have to be literal on the LSAT.
2. This introduces a conditional relationship that the passage doesn’t mention. It’s waaaaaaay too extreme. Think about it: this answer means that, if you aren’t going to be criminally charged, nothing will stop you from doing bad things as an employee:
   * Your boss will fire you? Who cares!
   * Your family will be horrified at your horrible behavior? Too bad, losers!
   * Your coworkers will be shocked, and shun you? Lame! Who cares about them?

   Look, you’re a human. You know damned well that humans are influenced by many things other than criminal charges. This answer is insane! Your job isn’t to help crazy answers seem sane by twisting them into a reasonable interpretation. You have to take them literally.

   A lot of LSAT answers are truly bonkers if interpreted literally, and no person in a passage would ever agree with them. If nobody would agree with an answer, then it can’t be right.

3. The passage doesn’t mention difficulty of prosecution. The critics in paragraph 3 merely argued that charging individuals deters them better. That’s a difference thing: ease of prosecution is not the same concept as how deterred the potential criminal is. You might have picked this thinking it is hard to prosecute the right person because of scapegoats etc, but that isn’t what this answer says. It just talks about the difficulty of prosecuting a person – it could be the wrong person.
4. CORRECT. The critics in paragraph 3 think that punishing individuals within the corporation is more reasonable than having the public (and shareholders, creditors, employees) bear the consequences of corporate prosecution. See the analysis above for an in depth explanation of how exactly this is an inference.
5. The passage doesn’t mention the frequency that an identifiable victim with resources is harmed by corporate wrongdoing. And also, this was a concept from paragraph 2, when the author rebuts the critics from paragraph 1. But the question is about paragraph 3.

---