Logical Reasoning

PT128 · S3 · Q25 Although withholding information from someone

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

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.

Conclusion

Jane should inform Jason that his supervisor is displeased with his work.

Evidence

While it may be painful for Jason to learn his supervisor is displeased, having this information would allow him to improve his supervisor's opinion.

Withholding information is unjustified if the person would benefit from having it.

Evaluate

The argument essentially states that while it might hurt Jason to find out about his supervisor's displeasure, causing him pain is justified because he would benefit from the knowledge by being able to improve his work.

We're looking to bridge the gap between "knowing the information allows improvement" and "improvement is beneficial." Why should Jason be informed if it's going to hurt him? Because he can improve his supervisor's opinion, which is assumed to be advantageous for Jason.

Goal

Look for an assumption indicating that the benefit of knowing outweighs the pain or establishing that improving his supervisor's opinion would indeed benefit Jason.

25.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies?

  1. If Jane does not tell

    Too Strong: Worsen

    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.

    8% picked this

  2. If Jane does not tell

    Too Strong: Never Find Out

    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% picked this

  3. If Jane tells Jason that

    Irrelevant: Gratitude

    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% picked this

  4. Jason might eventually improve his

    Opposite

    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% picked this

  5. Correct

    Jason would benefit if he

    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% 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