Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT111 S3 Q11 Explanation

Teacher to a student: You agree

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

TopicsNecessary Assumption

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

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

Teacher to a student: You agree that it is bad to break promises. But when we speak to each other we all make an implicit promise to tell the truth, and lying is the breaking of that promise. So even if you promised Jeanne that you would tell tell me that, if you know that she is well.

What this question is testing

Necessary Assumption

Your task

Find the assumption the argument requires in order for its conclusion to hold.

Common trap

Answers that would help the argument but aren't strictly required (sufficient, not necessary).

Winning move

Negate each choice — the right one breaks the argument when negated.

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

The question
11.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the teacher’s

Answer choices

  1. Too Specific: most2% picked this

    Most people always tell the

    "Most" is wrong 99% of the time we see it on Necessary Assumption, because most means "more than 50%" and that distinction between being 51% and 49% is usually not a meaningful one. Would this argument be different, whether 51% of people always tell the truth or only 49% of people always tell the truth? Nope, same either way, so the author doesn't need to assume it's at least 51%. The author isn't talking about what most people do do. The conclusion is about what the student should do. The teacher may be arguing that the student should do X, even if most people don't do X. I might recommend to people that they meditate, get plenty of sleep, and get daily exercise, even though I know most people (including me) don't pull off doing those three things.

  2. Irrelevant Comparison8% picked this

    It is sometimes better to act in a friend’s best interests than to keep a

    The first half of this comparison doesn't match any part of the conversation. The student has to choose between keeping a promise with Jeanne and breaking a promise to Jeanne (we were never even told that Jeanne was a friend, so that concept is out of scope). This answer makes it sound like the choice is between acting in Jeanne's interests and keeping a promise to Jeanne. But as far as we know (and as far as Jeanne's opinion on the matter goes), keeping the promise to Jeanne would be acting in Jeanne's interest. We could fix this answer by saying something that better matches the choice, like, It is sometimes better to keep a promise with your teacher than to keep a promise with your friend.

  3. Too Strong4% picked this

    Breaking a promise leads to worse consequences than does telling

    Too Strong: Leads to Out of Scope: Worse Consequences Weakens The author is never discussing consequences of lying, other than the superficial one of breaking an implicit promise. She doesn't guarantee that breaking promises always leads to worse outcomes than lying does. The author isn't comparing the consequences of a breaking a promise to those of telling a lie. In fact, the author is saying that telling a lie is breaking a promise, so it would be nonsense to say that one had worse consequences than the other. Finally, this answer tips the scales of the Weighing Tradeoffs, but it does so in the opposite direction of the author. This answer makes it seem like "it would be worse to break the promise to Jeanne, so I should keep that promise and tell the teacher that she is home sick."

  4. Correct69% picked this

    Some implicit promises are worse to break than some

    Why this is right

    This correctly expresses the tilted scales of how the author was Weighing Tradeoffs. The student can either break her explicit promise to Jeanne (by not telling her teacher the phony 'home sick' alibi). Or the student can break the implicit promise she makes to tell the truth, (by telling her teacher the phony "home sick" alibi). The teacher is saying, "You should tell me the truth (thereby breaking the promise you made with Jeanne)." So he must be thinking that, in this case, it's more important for the student to keep the implicit promise to tell the truth than to keep the explicit promise to lie about Jeanne's alibi. If we negated this, we'd get, "Implicit promises are never worse to break than explicit promises." That would badly weaken the argument, because it would either imply that the explicit promise is more important, thus the student should keep her explicit promise to Jeanne, or imply that the explicit promise is equally important, thus the student is stuck in a no-win impasse, because she can't help but break a promise, and they're both equally important to keep.

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

  5. Too Strong: Never17% picked this

    One should never break a

    The teacher is literally counseling the student to break a promise (he's saying, "I know you promised Jeanne you'd say X, but don't say X".) So he's definitely not assuming one should never break a promise. He's trying to tell the student how to choose which promise to keep and which to break.

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