Logical Reasoning

PT104 · S4 · Q22 The reasoning in the argument could

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

Words like “employee,” “payee,” and “detainee” support the generalization, crudely stated, that words with the ending -ee designate the person affected in the specified way by an action performed by someone else.

Summary

It doesn't make a ton of sense to worry about the "argument" here, since the question is very specifically about picking a word that would function in the same way that "absentee" did.

The author started by proposing a general rule:

If it ends in "-ee", then it designates the person affected by someone else.

An employee is employed by someone. A payee is paid by someone. A detainee is detained by someone.

But then the author thinks of an exception: absentee.

An absentee isn't absenteed by someone.

Goal

So we need to find a word that has the same problem as absentee had. It doesn't end up referring to an action that someone else did to you.

22.

The reasoning in the argument could have remained unchanged in force and focus if which one of the following had been advanced as a counterexample in place of the word "absentee"?

  1. Honoree

    Conforming Example

    An honoree is honored by someone, so this is an example of an "-ee" that fits the original rule.

    4% picked this

  2. Appointee

    Conforming Example

    An appointee is appointed by someone, so this is an example of an "-ee" that fits the original rule.

    7% picked this

  3. Nominee

    Conforming Example

    A nominee is nominated by someone, so this is an example of an "-ee" that fits the original rule.

    6% picked this

  4. Transferee

    Conforming Example

    A transferee is transferred by someone, so this is an example of an "-ee" that fits the original rule.

    8% picked this

  5. Correct

    Escapee

    Why this is right

    An escapee isn't escaped by someone, so this is an example of an "-ee" that doesn't fit the original rule. We could have also thought about how the other four actions involve a two-party transaction X honors Y, the honoree. X appoints Y, the appointee. X nominates Y, the nominee. X transfers Y, the transferee. But you can't say X escapes Y, the escapee. If "Bob escapes prison", Bob is the escapee, not "prison".

    Skill tested: Must be True · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    75% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

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

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