Logical Reasoning

PT123 · S2 · Q12 Suppose I have promised to keep

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

Suppose I have promised to keep a confidence and someone asks me a question that I cannot answer truthfully without thereby breaking the promise.

Conclusion (therefore)

One cannot be obliged both to answer all questions truthfully and to keep all promises.

Evidence

Suppose I have promised to keep a confidence and someone asks me a question that I cannot answer truthfully without thereby breaking the promise.

Obviously, I cannot both keep and break the same promise.

Evaluate

The argument is shooting down a potential moral principle as unacceptable because it would sometimes result in a contradiction.

You can't say we have to follow rule 1 and rule 2, if they will sometimes conflict.

Goal

So let's look for an argument presents something similar: - a conclusion that's like - evidence that's like, .

12.

Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its reasoning to the argument above?

  1. Correct

    It is claimed that we

    Why this is right

    This has what we were looking for: - a conclusion that's like "it's unacceptable for these 2 things to both be true" You can't have total right to say what you please and also a duty to be civil. - evidence that's like, "these 2 things can potentially conflict with / contradict each other". Being civil will sometimes limit your right to say what you please.

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

    86% picked this

  2. Some politicians could attain popularity

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This conclusion doesn't sound anything like "it's unacceptable for these 2 things to both be true", so we wouldn't bother reading any closer on a first pass through these answers. The evidence does show things in tension, but a correct conclusion would have to say something like, "It follows that politicians cannot both do whatever it takes to be popular but also refrain from deceiving voters".

    5% picked this

  3. If we put a lot

    Bad Evidence / Conclusion Match

    The conclusion doesn't sound anything like "it's unacceptable for both of these things to be true", so we shouldn't invest much time on a first pass. Were we to look deeper, the evidence is also a bad match. It's not showing how two concurrent rules could potentially result in a contradiction. Instead, it's tracing out two nonconcurrent rules that would result in a similarity. In other words, it's saying "If we do X, Y will occur", but "If we don't do X, thing Y will still occur". X and not-X would never both be true at the same time. So the author isn't presenting a situation where two rules would come into conflict with each other. We either put in a lot of effort or we don't, so either one rule is triggered or the other is. The original argument is about how two rules that are both simultaneously affecting our decision making would force us into contradictory decisions.

    4% picked this

  4. If creditors have legitimate claims

    Bad Evidence / Conclusion Match

    The conclusion doesn't sound like "it's unacceptable for both of these things to be true". When we say "either X or Y must be true" we're saying that at least one must be true, not that they can't both be true. Were we to look deeper, the evidence is also not a good match. It doesn't show two rules that can result in a contradiction. Instead, it shows two rules that chain together: C's have legit claims and --> B obliged --> court will B's has $ to pay debts to pay force to pay The argument then validly reasons, "since that outcome isn't true, the court did NOT force this business to pay, then at least one of those trigger ideas must not be true".

    2% picked this

  5. If we extend our business

    Bad Evidence / Conclusion Match

    The conclusion doesn't sound like "it's unacceptable for both of these things to be true", so we shouldn't invest much time on this on a first pass. Were we to look deeper, the evidence is also not a good match. It doesn't show two rules that can result in a contradiction. Instead, it shows one rules with an either/or outcome, and shows that no matter which outcome you pick, labor costs will go up. In this way, it's similar to (C). It's saying "whether THIS is true or THAT is true, either way you'll get to the same idea". The evidence is supposed to be saying, "If both THIS is true and THAT is true, then sometimes you'll get to an opposite / contradictory idea".

    3% 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