Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Easy

PT112 S3 Q9 Explanation

I agree that Hogan’s actions

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

TopicsMain Conclusion

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

I agree that Hogan’s actions resulted in grievous injury to Winters. And I do not deny that Hogan fully realized the nature of his actions and the effects that they would have. Indeed, I would not disagree if you pointed out that intentionally causing such effects is reprehensible, other things being equal. the robber who had been terrorizing west-side apartment buildings for the past several months.

What this question is testing

Main Conclusion

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
9.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the conclusion of

Answer choices

  1. Contradicted4% picked this

    Hogan should not be considered responsible for the injuries sustained

    Not only does this not match our conclusion (the first half of the last sentence, "Hogan's actions shouldn't be wholly condemned"), it is also contradicted by the first sentence.

  2. Unstated1% picked this

    The robber who had been terrorizing west-side apartment buildings should be considered to be as responsible for

    This not match our conclusion (the first half of the last sentence, "Hogan's actions shouldn't be wholly condemned"), and it is also something that was never even said, so it can't be the conclusion.

  3. Correct79% picked this

    The actions of Hogan that seriously injured Winters are not

    Why this is right

    This is the best match we get for our conclusion, the first half of the last sentence: "Hogan's actions shouldn't be wholly condemned". The actions we're talking about are those he took that resulted in injury to Winters. "Not completely blameworthy" = "shouldn't be wholly condemned"

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

  4. Premise12% picked this

    Hogan thought that Winters was the person who had been terrorizing west-side apartment buildings for

    This not match our conclusion (the first half of the last sentence, "Hogan's actions shouldn't be wholly condemned"). This is the second half of the final sentence, which was the premise.

  5. Concession4% picked this

    The actions of Hogan that seriously injured Winters were reprehensible, other

    This not match our conclusion (the first half of the last sentence, "Hogan's actions shouldn't be wholly condemned"). This is one of the author's first three claims, which were all concessions.

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