Logical Reasoning

PT108 · S3 · Q16 To act responsibly in one's

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

To act responsibly in one's professional capacity, one must act on the basis of information that one has made a reasonable effort to make sure is accurate and complete.

Principle

To do X, one must do Y is equivalent to saying X requires Y, which is equivalent to writing X → Y.

So we could write this principle like this

Acting responsibly Acting on the basis of in your job's role → info you're reasonably sure is true / complete

But if we're savvy about Apply the Principle questions, we know we want the "judgy" term on the right. Principles are supposed to sound like, .

Since "You acted responsibly / you acted irresponsibly" is the value judgment half of this answer, we want to contrapose the rule so that it's on the right side, and will thus match the conclusion of the arguments in the answer choices.

If you weren't acting then you weren't on info you tried to → acting responsibly make sure was true in your professional and accurate capacity

Goal

Start by checking the conclusion. If it says "thus, X was not acting responsibly", then read the evidence to see it establishes that the person wasn't acting on well-verified information.

If the conclusion says anything other that "X was not acting responsibly" (or something with equivalent meaning), then get rid of it.

16.

Which one of the following judgments most closely conforms to the principle cited above?

  1. Peggy acted responsibly in ordering

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This is concluding the person did act responsibly, so we needn't read any further. Our Principle can only derive the conclusion "did not act responsibly", because you can only conclude what's on the right side of the arrow. If you weren't acting then you weren't on info you tried to → acting responsibly make sure was true in your professional and accurate capacity

    1% picked this

  2. Mary acted responsibly in firing

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This is concluding the person did act responsibly, so we needn't read any further. Our Principle can only derive the conclusion "did not act responsibly", because you can only conclude what's on the right side of the arrow. If you weren't acting then you weren't on info you tried to → acting responsibly make sure was true in your professional and accurate capacity

    30% picked this

  3. Correct

    Toril did not act responsibly

    Why this is right

    Correct This is concluding the person did not act responsibly, so it's worth reading. Does the evidence establish that Toril didn't act on well-verified information? If you weren't acting then you weren't on info you tried to → acting responsibly make sure was true in your professional and accurate capacity Yes! It says that "she had not investigated the risks of the investment". And was this irresponsible behavior done in Toril's professional capacity? Yes, she was investing the company's money.

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

    60% picked this

  4. Conchita did not act responsibly

    Bad Trigger Match

    This is concluding the person did not act responsibly, so it's worth reading. Does the evidence establish that Conchita didn't act on well-verified information? If you weren't acting then you weren't on info you tried to → acting responsibly make sure was true in your professional and accurate capacity Not really. It doesn't say one way or the other whether Conchita made a reasonable effort to make sure she was acting on true / complete info, but in order for an answer to be correct it needs to tell us explicitly that she wasn't acting on info she verified was good. The fact that Helmer made a mistake he had never made before is consistent with the idea that she did do her due diligence and Helmer had nothing like this in his past.

    0% picked this

  5. Jennifer did not act responsibly

    Bad Trigger Match

    This is concluding the person did not act responsibly, so it's worth reading. Does the evidence establish that Jennifer didn't act on well-verified information? If you weren't acting then you weren't on info you tried to → acting responsibly make sure was true in your professional and accurate capacity Yes, it does. She acted on impulse, not well-verified info. And was she acting irresponsibly in her professional capacity? No, she was just booking vacation, which sounds like a personal decision, so this principle doesn't apply.

    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.

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