Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Medium

PT133 S1 Q10 Explanation

Ms. Sandstrom's newspaper column

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

TopicsSufficient 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

Start practicing free

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

Ms. Sandstrom's newspaper column describing a strange natural phenomenon on the Mendels' farm led many people to trespass on and extensively damage their property. Thus, Ms. Sandstrom should pay for this damage if, as the Mendels claim, she could lead people to damage the Mendels' farm.

What this question is testing

Sufficient Assumption

Your task

Find the assumption that, if added, guarantees the conclusion follows.

Common trap

Answers that only partly bridge the gap, leaving the conclusion unproven.

Winning move

Identify the new term in the conclusion and pick the choice that links it to the evidence.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
10.

The argument's conclusion can be properly inferred if which one of the

Answer choices

  1. Correct76% picked this

    One should pay for any damage that one's action leads other people to cause if one could have reasonably expected that the action would

    Why this is right

    This bridges the gap RED ? PD between a reasonable expectation that one’s action would lead other people to cause damage and an obligation to pay for any damage resulting from one’s action.

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

  2. Term Shift / Reversal7% picked this

    One should pay for damage that one's action leads other people to cause only if, prior to the action, one expected that the action

    That Ms. Sandstrom could have reasonably expected her column to lead other people to cause damage to the Mendels’ farm is not the same as that she expected, prior to the action, her column to lead other to damage the Mendels’ farm. Furthermore, this also PD ? ED reverses the relationship.

  3. Out of Scope0% picked this

    It is unlikely that the people who trespassed on and caused the damage to the Mendels' property would themselves pay

    Whether those who caused the damage are likely to pay is not relevant to the argument.

  4. Too Weak11% picked this

    Ms. Sandstrom knew that her column could incite trespassing that could result in damage to

    This doesn’t ensure that Ms. Sandstrom should pay for the damage the damage.

  5. Supports a Premise5% picked this

    The Mendels believe that Ms. Sandstrom is able to form reasonable expectations about the consequences

    This supports the argument’s premise.

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