Logical Reasoning

PT136 · S2 · Q7 Mike: Tom did not tell me

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

Mike: Tom did not tell me that I could use his computer, but it would not be wrong for me to use it anyway.

Conclusion

Even though Tom didn't tell me I could use his computer, it would be not wrong for me to do so.

Evidence

Last week Tom used Mary's bike even though she never told him he could use it.

Evaluate

Why are we allowed to take Tom's computer without asking? Because we've seen Tom take somebody else's stuff without asking before.

If we've ever seen someone toilet-paper someone else's house, then it's not wrong to toilet paper their house.

What is the abstract principle we're using here?

Goal

Look for something like,

7.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, would most help to justify Mike's reasoning?

  1. Using the possessions of others

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This rule doesn't allow us to get too close to proving "it is not wrong". It at best would allow us to prove "it's not necessarily theft". Something can certainly be wrong without being theft, so this rule doesn't address the concept we're trying to justify.

    2% picked this

  2. Generally one should tell the

    Out of Scope: tell the truth

    Nothing in this conversation has anything to do with whether or not someone should tell the truth (it's about whether or not it's okay to take something without asking), so this has no bearing on the argument.

    0% picked this

  3. If people have used your

    Bad Premise Match

    This principle is saying, "If you've done it to me, I can do it to you." But the argument was, "If Tom did X to Mary, then I can do X to Tom." It wasn't a reciprocating eye-for-an-eye type situation. It was more like, "Once you've cheated on someone, then you deserve to get cheated on (by future partners)."

    8% picked this

  4. Correct

    It is permissible to treat

    Why this is right

    Saying that it is permissible to do X would qualify as saying as it is not wrong to do X, so this answer does apply to our conclusion. Does it match our evidence? Are we treating Tom in a way that is similar to the way in which Tom has treated others? Yes, by taking something of his without his consent, we are treating him in a way that is similar to how he treated Mary.

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

    90% picked this

  5. Using another person's property is

    Out of Scope: harm

    Nothing in this argument was talking about someone being harmed by our use of their property.

    1% 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