Although withholding information from someone

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

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

Although withholding information from someone who would find that information painful is sometimes justified, there is no such justification if the person would benefit from having the information. Therefore, even though it would be painful for Jason to learn that his supervisor is displeased with his work, his colleague Jane should nonetheless displeased would enable Jason to improve his supervisor's opinion of his work.

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

25.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the

Answer choices

Too Strong: Worsen7% picked this
If Jane does not tell Jason that his supervisor is displeased with his work, then
If Jane does not tell Jason that his supervisor is displeased, then Jason's situation will worsen. The argument doesn't hinge on his current situation getting worse without the information; it only discusses the benefit derived from gaining information and the subsequent improvement.
7%
Too Strong: Never Find Out5% picked this
If Jane does not tell Jason that his supervisor is displeased with his work, Jason
If Jane does not tell Jason, he will never find out. The argument doesn't need to assume that Jason will never find out from other sources. It's about whether Jane should tell him, considering the benefit of him knowing.
5%
Irrelevant: Gratitude8% picked this
If Jane tells Jason that his supervisor is displeased with his work, Jason will be grateful for the information even though it will be
If Jane tells Jason, he will be grateful for the information. Gratitude isn't a necessary component of the argument. Whether or not Jason feels grateful, the issue is about whether being informed helps him.
8%
Opposite2% picked this
Jason might eventually improve his supervisor's opinion of his work even if he never learns that his supervisor
Jason might improve his work even without knowing. This would undermine the argument's point, because if he could improve without knowing, then there's less necessity for Jane to inform him.
2%
Correct78% picked this
Jason would benefit if he were able to improve his supervisor's opinion
Why this is right
Jason would benefit if he were able to improve his supervisor's opinion of his work. This answer directly tackles the reason for the entire effort of informing him—if knowing the supervisor's opinion allows Jason to improve it, and in doing so, Jason benefits, then it's worth getting that painful information out in the open.
Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
78%

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