Logical Reasoning

PT10 · S4 · Q19 Many people change their wills

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one
Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step
81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Many people change their wills on their own every few years, in response to significant changes in their personal or financial circumstances.

Conclusion (therefore / should)

People should not only date their wills but also state in any new will which will it supercedes.

Intermediate Conclusion (for)

Then there would not be the problem in which the executor of the will isn't sure whether she's looking at the most updated copy of the will.

Evidence

When wills aren't dated, then the executor doesn't know which of several undated wills is the most recent, nor whether the will drawn up last has ever been found.

Evaluate

Since we're really evaluating a Plan / Recommendation, we can think of it in terms of, , or we can think of it as ?

The problem the author is trying to solve is two-fold. When an executor finds more than one will, they often don't know which of the wills is the most recent, and then don't even know if the most recent will is one of the ones they possess.

The author is saying,

Say that a will was drafted on Jan 1, 2022. But then the person wants to change it and so they draft another one on March 1, 2022. They would write on that will, .

When this person dies on Aug 1, 2022 and the executor finds both of these wills, she'll know that the March 1st one is more recent and to ignore the Jan 1st one.

But how does she know there isn't another will hiding somewhere dated ?

The executor would never know for sure whether there is still a will, not in her possession, that is more recent than the most-recent one she possesses.

Goal

Let's look for something making the objection that the executor still wouldn't know whether there's a more recent will than the most-recent one she possesses.

19.

The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument

Correct
treats a partial solution to
Why this is right
The idea to date the wills and explain which version of the will this one is superseding solves one of the two problems. When an executor finds multiple undated wills, then they will ... 1. not know which of the ones they're looking at is the most recent 2. not know whether the most recent one written is even in their possession The author's solution to date the wills will certainly take care of #1. The executor will be able to tell which of the wills in her possession is the most recent one; but she still won't have any idea if there is a more recent one not in her possession. That more recent will would tell her that it supersedes the one she's currently holding, but she'll never know that unless she finds that more recent will, and there's no way for her to know whether she should be looking for a more recent will. So since the author's recommendation doesn't take care of #2, we can say that the author's "there will not be a problem to begin with" is acting like solving #1 also solves #2.
Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
60% picked this
fails to distinguish between prevention
Out of Scope: adverse effects
The argument was never talking about the adverse effects that might transpire if the executor mistakenly thinks that the March 1st will is the most recent one. We can't criticize the argument by saying that the author's suggestion to date every will and mention which will it supersedes in order to solve the executor's problem is failing to distinguish between solving the problem and containing the adverse effects of the problem. If the author's suggestion successfully solved the executor's problem, then there would be no adverse effects. We're mad at the author because his suggestion doesn't really solve the problem.
17% picked this
proposes a solution to the
Out of Scope
Out of Scope: makes someone else responsible It's true that the author "proposes a solution to the stated problem that does not actually solve the problem". But it doesn't make any sense to say that the author's proposed solution makes someone else responsible for solving the problem. The author's proposed solution is for people to date their will and mention the previous version that's being overwritten. But it's still the executor of the will who is responsible for solving the problem, upon X's death, of which of X's wills is the most recent.
7% picked this
claims that a certain action
Not Our Objection
The author does claim that this would be a change for the better ("there wouldn't be a problem to begin with"). By saying "there's no problem to begin with" the author might be fairly said to be explicitly considering negative consequences. He's saying, "There ARE no negative consequences. There wouldn't be a problem to begin with." But someone could probably say, "Yes, but the author doesn't explicitly consider what negative consequences there might be in dating every will and saying which will it supersedes." That's true, but that's not a persuasive objection, not a reason we would find fault with the author's logic. Do we really think there's a significant downside to adding a date to a will? Your pen runs out of ink sooner? You waste 1 second you could have been doing something else?
8% picked this
proposes that a certain action
Out of Scope: unavailable information
The author proposes the action of dating their will (people would have the information of 'today's date' available at that time) and stating which will it supersedes. People theoretically always have a copy of their will, so if you write a new will to supersede the currently binding one, then you should be able to look at the currently binding one to acquire any information you need to notate on the new will that it will supersede this one. It seems like both actions the author is recommending that people take would require information they have access to.
9% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill

LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free