Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT138 S2 Q23 Explanation

Ethicist: Only when we know a lot

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

Ethicist: Only when we know a lot about the events that led to an action are we justified in praising or blaming a person for that action-as we sometimes are. We must therefore reject Tolstoy's rash claim that if we knew a lot about would cease to regard that action as freely performed.

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
23.

Which one of the following, if assumed, enables the conclusion of the ethicist's argument to

Answer choices

  1. Term Shift8% picked this

    People should not be regarded as subject to praise or blame for actions that were caused by

    Whether people are regarded as subject to praise or blame is different than whether someone is justified in praising or blaming a person for their action.

  2. Term Shift8% picked this

    Whether an act is one for which the person doing it is genuinely responsible is not determined by how much information

    Whether such a person is genuinely responsible is not the same as whether we would regard their act as freely performed.

  3. Correct66% picked this

    We can be justified in praising or blaming a person for an action only when we regard that

    Why this is right

    This ensures that that J → RFP there are some actions J → KE for which we know a ჻ KE ↢some↣ RFP lot about the events that led to that action that we would regard as freely performed.

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

  4. Out of Scope8% picked this

    The responsibility a person bears for an action is not a matter of degree; however, our inclination to blame or praise whoever performed the

    The degree to which we are inclined to blame or praise is not relevant to the argument.

  5. Weaken10% picked this

    If we do not know much about the events leading up to any given action, we will regard

    This presents the KE → ~RFP negation of Tolstoy’s claim, which is not the same as the argument’s rejection of Tolstoy’s claim.

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