Logical Reasoning

PT120 · S1 · Q7 Terry: Months ago, I submitted

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

Terry: Months ago, I submitted a claim for my stolen bicycle to my insurance company.

Conclusion (conclude that)

The company is deliberately avoiding paying up.

Evidence

Submitted a claim to insurance company months ago. Heard nothing for weeks. Called them. They had never seen the claim. Resubmitted the claim twice. Called repeatedly. Still haven't gotten the settlement.

Evaluate

This question stem is highly unusual, so let's understand our task. The correct answer is a principle that is violated by Terry's reasoning.

What does it mean to violate a principle?

This is synonymous with the question, "how do you refute a conditional?", since almost all principles are phrased in conditional form.

If a principle said, "Look before you leap", then violating it would mean that you leapt without looking.

Conditionally, "look before you leap" means "leaping requires looking first" leap → look first

Violating a principle / refuting a conditional, means that we're providing an example in which the LEFT side happens but the RIGHT side doesn't.

So if these answers are conditionals, we'll ask ourselves, ?

If we don't need to get this nitty gritty we won't, but that is the technical sense of violating a principle.

Goal

We can kind of treat this like a Must Be False or Weaken question, since we want a principle that Terry is going against. It should feel like Terry's reasoning breaks the rule or goes against its advice.

7.

Which one of the following principles is violated by Terry's reasoning?

  1. Correct

    Consumers should avoid attributing dishonesty

    Why this is right

    This is a conditional, signified by the sufficient (LEFT side) indicator word when. actions of corporation consumer should avoid might be explained by → attributing dishonesty incompetence to the corporation If Terry's argument violated this principle, then it DID the left side but DIDN'T do the right side. is LEFT side true? Might the actions of the insurance company might be explained by incompetence? Sure. An incompetent company might keep losing the submitted claims, might not call him back, might mess up processing his claim, might mess up mailing out the payment. is RIGHT side being followed? Did the author, a consumer, avoid attributing dishonesty to the corporation? No, Terry didn't. He concluded that the company is deliberately (dishonestly) avoiding paying him for the submitted insurance claim. Thus, Terry violated this principle. The left side applied, the right was defied. (Hey, I just made that up and now will be cursed with saying that as I teach, until I die)

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

    78% picked this

  2. Consumers should attempt to keep

    Opposite

    This could be written as a conditional corporate behavior you should attempt directly affects your → to keep yourself interest informed of it Terry is following, not violating, this principle. The corporate behavior of "have they / have they not received and started processing my claim" is something that directly affects Terry's interest and he is definitely attempting to keep himself informed about where the process is at, by frequently calling and contacting them.

    1% picked this

  3. In judging the quality of

    Opposite

    Terry is definitely following this principle. His conclusion is judging the quality of service (it sucks) and his evidence is relying primarily on his own experience with this insurance claim.

    3% picked this

  4. In judging the morality of

    Opposite, if anything

    Terry, in reaching the conclusion that this insurance company is just messing with him, seems to be failing to consider any mitigating circumstances for why his claim might be getting delayed non-deliberately. It's a little strong to say that Terry is judging the morality of the corporation, but calling them "dishonest" is certainly on the way there. So it seems like Terry is, in a way, judging the morality of the company and ignoring mitigating circumstances in saying, "They must be doing this on purpose".

    9% picked this

  5. Corporations ought to make available

    Unrelated to Goal

    This is a principle about how a corporation should behave. Terry is not a corporation, so Terry can't violate this principle.

    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.

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