Logical Reasoning

PT107 · S1 · Q19 Arbitrator: The shipping manager

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

Start practicing free

Arbitrator: The shipping manager admits that he decided to close the old facility on October 14 and to schedule the new facility’s opening for October 17, the following Monday.

Conclusion (is to blame = opinion)

The shipping manager is also to blame for the lost business resulting from the facility's delayed opening.

Evidence

The shipping manager was aware of the contractor's typical delays and should have planned for this contingency.

Evaluate

If we want to articulate the classic "If premise, then conclusion" principle, then it would sound something like,

.

Goal

Let's look for a principle whose right side is helping us to support conclusion language like "you are also to blame".

The trigger just needs to be something that applies to this shipping manager (and should match up with and/or "should have planned for this contingency but didn't").

19.

Which one of the following principles underlies the arbitrator's argument?

  1. Correct

    A manager should take foreseeable

    Why this is right

    This is a surprising correct answer that we might only "come home to" once we discover that other answers are worse. It doesn't have the "Premise -> Conclusion" linking language we often expect, but it certainly feels like an idea that's embedded in this argument. The language of "taking foreseeable problems into account when making decisions" aligns with the conversation, because "foreseeable problems" matches up with the fact that the manager was aware of the contractor's typical delays. Given that this contractor is typically delayed in finishing jobs, it was a foreseeable problem that the contractor might be delayed in finishing this new facility. And the language of "should have taken into account" matches up with "should have planned for this contingency". Since the manager closed the old facility on a Friday and planned to open the new one on the following Monday, she didn't take into account that she might need some overlapping time period where both facilities theoretically open, just in case there was a delay with the new facility. If we negated this answer would it weaken? Sure! We could argue that "the manager is not also to blame for the fact that the contractor didn't finish on time", after all, "a manager doesn't need to take foreseeable problems into account (such as the contractor's typical lateness) when deciding on when to close the old facility and when to open the new one."

    Skill tested: Principle-Conform · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    87% picked this

  2. A manager should be able

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This principle isn't one we could use to scold the shipping manager, which is what the conclusion is doing. We're trying to support the author's condemnation that the shipping manager is also blameworthy for this lateness. This answer, meanwhile, puts all the blame on the contractor, for failing to finish the job on time. (A) gives us a principle that the shipping manager violated, which allows us to support the scolding conclusion.

    1% picked this

  3. A manager should see to

    Bad Evidence Match

    Since the contractor failed to finish their job on time, we might say that the manager failed to see to it that the contractor did their job promptly. And since the manager failed to adhere to this principle, that would give us license to chastise the manager and say, "You're also to blame". But this doesn't match the reasoning, because the evidence offered wasn't saying anything to the effect of, "the shipping manager is also to blame, for he should have gone to the construction site regularly to check in on the contractor's progress". Instead, the evidence was "... for he was aware the contractor was usually late in finishing the job and should have anticipated such a likely occurrence".

    1% picked this

  4. A manager should be held

    Bad Evidence Match

    Since the contractor failed to finish their job on time, we might say that the contractor made a mistake. And since this principle is saying that a manager should be held responsible for mistakes that their underlings make, this feels somewhat tempting as a way of saying that the manager should also be held responsible for the late opening of the facility. But two problems - 1. a contractor is not directly supervised by a manager. They are an outside contractor, not an employee. A manager directly supervises employees that report to him. A contractor might report back to the manager that hired them to do the job, but the contractor is not an employee at the manager's company and thus can't be said to be directly supervised by the manager. 2. This doesn't match the premise language at all, so it doesn't match the reasoning used. We didn't hear, "The manager too is to blame, for he had direct oversight over the contractor". We heard, "The manager too is to blame, for he was aware that the contractor usually takes longer than the deadline and thus he should have anticipated this contingency".

    10% picked this

  5. A manager, and only a

    Bad Conclusion Match Too Strong: only

    The conclusion isn't saying that only the manager should be held responsible. It's saying that "the manager too is to blame". Since our author thinks the contractor and the manager are to blame, she's clearly not employing a principle that says that only a manager should be held responsible.

    0% 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