Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Easy

PT136 S2 Q7 Explanation

Mike: Tom did not tell me

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

TopicsPrinciple-Strengthen

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

Mike: Tom did not tell me that I could use his computer, but it would not be wrong for me to use it anyway. Last week Tom used Mary's bicycle told him he could use it.

What this question is testing

Principle-Strengthen

Your task

Break the argument into its conclusion and evidence, then do exactly what the question stem asks with that structure.

Common trap

Answers that sound relevant to the topic but don't connect to the argument's actual reasoning.

Winning move

Predict what a right answer must do, then test each choice against the conclusion-evidence gap.

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

The question
7.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, would most help to

Answer choices

  1. Bad Conclusion Match2% picked this

    Using the possessions of others without their permission is not

    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. Out of Scope: tell the truth0% picked this

    Generally one should tell the truth, but there are cases in which it is

    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.

  3. Bad Premise Match8% picked this

    If people have used your property without permission, it is not wrong for you to use their

    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)."

  4. Correct89% picked this

    It is permissible to treat people in a way that is similar to the way in which

    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.

  5. Out of Scope: harm1% picked this

    Using another person's property is wrong if the person is harmed

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

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