Logical Reasoning

PT130 · S4 · Q25 Claude: When I'm having lunch

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

Claude: When I'm having lunch with job candidates, I watch to see if they salt their food without first tasting it.

Conclusion

It's silly to knock a job candidate's judgment because they're salting their food before tasting it (acting without sufficient information). i.e. It's perfectly reasonable to salt your food at a restaurant before tasting it.

Evidence

It's reasonable to wear a sweater to the grocery, before you've felt the temperature inside the store that day. It's reasonable to throw away credit card mail without finding out exactly what's being offered.

Evaluation

The analogies are meant to defend someone acting without having all the relevant information. Larissa is saying,

Goal

Claude is negatively judging candidates who preemptively salt their food. Larissa thinks that's silly, and that preemptively salting your meal is totally reasonable. What principle is she invoking in criticizing Claude?

If it's perfectly reasonable in these other cases to act preemptively based on expectations about what will likely be the case, then it shouldn't reflect poorly on your job candidates if they're preemptively salting.

25.

The two analogies that Larissa offers can most reasonably be interpreted as invoking which one of the following principles to criticize Claude's policy?

  1. Correct

    In matters involving personal preference,

    Why this is right

    The case of preemptively salting your food is indeed a matter involving personal preference. The salter is performing the salting action without first ascertaining whether this specific restaurant meal needs salt. But Larissa thinks this isn't good evidence of faulty thinking. It's reasonable to have a policy of salting your meals at restaurants if you developed that policy by noticing that in general restaurant meals didn't have enough salt for your preference.

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

    87% picked this

  2. In professional decision-making contexts, those

    Out of Scope: job-related behavior, character

    Claude's evaluation of job candidates is indeed a professional-decision making context, in which he has the responsibility to judge someone else's suitability for a job. But this principle is about making observations of job-related behavior, whereas Claude is observing whether someone preemptively salts their soup, which is presumably not job-related behavior. He's also inferring conclusions about the candidate's judgment, not their character.

    3% picked this

  3. General conclusions regarding a job

    Weak Premise Match

    This is close. It gives a rule that says, "If it isn't directly job related or it isn't indicative of a pattern of behavior that the candidate engages in, then you shouldn't be using it to judge a job candidate's suitability." But Claude would say, "this is indicative of a pattern: a preemptive soup-salter will have the pattern of making judgments without having all the required information"

    6% picked this

  4. Individuals whose behavior in specific

    Out of Scope: generally expected norms

    Nothing in either person's example had anything to do with generally expected social norms. It's about personal preferences, and whether or not it makes sense to take an action with only incomplete information.

    2% picked this

  5. Evidence that a particular individual

    Opposite: lapses of rationality

    Larissa isn't arguing, "Yes, the preemptive salting is dumb, but don't let this one lapse in rationality taint a job candidate in your mind." Instead, Larissa is arguing, "It's perfectly reasonable/rational for someone to preemptively salt, just like it's reasonable to wear a sweater to a grocery store or throw away a credit card offer in the mail."

    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