Logical Reasoning

PT126 · S3 · Q2 Board member: The J Foundation

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

Board member: The J Foundation, a philanthropic organization, gave you this grant on the condition that your resulting work not contain any material detrimental to the J Foundation's reputation.

Evidence

The J Foundation, a philanthropic ~D organization, gave you this grant on the condition that your resulting work not contain any material detrimental to the J Foundation’s reputation.

But your resulting work never ~L mentions any of the laudable achievements of our foundation.

Conclusion

Hence your work fails to meet D the conditions under which the grant was made (detrimental).

Evaluate

The argument assumes that a ~L → D work that does not contain any of the laudable achievements of the foundation is detrimental to the foundation.

2.

The reasoning in the board member's argument is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument

  1. takes for granted that a

    Out of Scope

    High intellectual value is not relevant to the argument.

    1% picked this

  2. confuses a condition necessary for

    Unsupported

    The condition necessary for receipt of a grant is that it not contain any material detrimental to the foundation. Since the evidence is about mentioning laudable achievements, the argument does not confuse a condition necessary for a grant as sufficient to provide a grant.

    6% picked this

  3. Correct

    presumes, without providing justification, that

    Why this is right

    This bridges the gap between ~L → D not mentioning the laudable achievements and containing material detrimental to the foundations reputation.

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

    91% picked this

  4. fails to consider that recipients

    Out of Scope

    What other recipients of a grant do is not relevant to an argument about this one recipient.

    0% picked this

  5. fails to consider the possibility

    Too Weak

    This would not weaken the argument since avoiding detriment to the J Foundation’s reputation would still imply that the recipient failed to meet the conditions of the grant.

    2% 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