Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Medium

PT104 S4 Q22 Explanation

The reasoning in the argument could

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

TopicsMust be True

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Start practicing free

Free to start

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

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. The word “absentee” seems to be a direct counterexample: it ends in -ee, yet, if it makes sense here to a two-party transaction, it refers to the party at which the other party’s action is directed.

What this question is testing

Must be True

Your task

Break the argument into its conclusion and evidence, then do exactly what the question stem asks with that structure.

Common trap

Answers that sound relevant to the topic but don't connect to the argument's actual reasoning.

Winning move

Predict what a right answer must do, then test each choice against the conclusion-evidence gap.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
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

Answer choices

  1. Conforming Example4% picked this

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

  2. Conforming Example7% picked this

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

  3. Conforming Example6% picked this

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

  4. Conforming Example8% picked this

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

  5. Correct75% picked this

    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.

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