Logical Reasoning

PT133 · S1 · Q10 Ms. Sandstrom's newspaper column

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

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.

Evidence

Ms. Sandstrom’s newspaper CD column describing a strange natural phenomenon on the Mendels’ farm led to many people to trespass on and extensively damage their property.

Conclusion

Ms. Sandstrom should pay RED → PD for this damage if, as the Mendels claim, she could have reasonably expected that the column would lead people to damage the Mendels’ farm.

Evaluate

The argument assumes RED → PD that if Ms. Sandstrom could have reasonably expected her column to lead people to damage the Mendels’ farm, then she should pay for damage caused by her column.

10.

The argument's conclusion can be properly inferred if which one of the following is assumed?

  1. Correct

    One should pay for any

    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.

    76% picked this

  2. One should pay for damage

    Term Shift / Reversal

    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.

    7% picked this

  3. It is unlikely that the

    Out of Scope

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

    0% picked this

  4. Ms. Sandstrom knew that her

    Too Weak

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

    12% picked this

  5. The Mendels believe that Ms.

    Supports a Premise

    This supports the argument’s premise.

    5% 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