Logical Reasoning

PT141 · S2 · Q12 The chairperson should not have

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

The chairperson should not have released the Election Commission's report to the public, for the chairperson did not consult any other members of the commission about releasing the report before having it released.

Conclusion

The chairperson should not have released the EC's report to the public.

Evidence

The chairperson didn't consult any other members of the EC before releasing the report.

Evaluate

This is a pretty easy missing link to prephrase, because there's just one premise, so we only need to say "IF premise, THEN conclusion".

Goal

didn't consult shouldn't have any other members → released EC

We want to be receptive to contrapositives, alert for illegal opposite/reversed answers, and ready to quickly get rid of any answers that are unrelated to our goal: should not have released report

12.

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

Correct
It would have been permissible
Why this is right
No one's picking this on a first pass, that's for sure. We didn't do anything wrong when we pre-phrased "if didn't consult, then shouldn't have released", this is just LSAC being creative. "only if" = necessary, so we put the attached idea to the right of the arrow. Permissible to most members of EC release report → gave their consent We can see that this answer has some potential, because if we contrapose it, we'll have the right side of the arrow we need: __________ → not permissible to release So can we establish that contrapositive trigger? Do we know that "most members of the EC did not give their consent"? Yes, we do know that. None of them were even consulted, so of course they couldn't have given their consent.* According to this rule, it was impermissible to release the report, so we've proven the Conclusion. Historically, it was easy to predict actual answers on Sufficient Assumption. More recently, we have to have a flexible mindset with how the correct answer might look or work. Think to yourself: If I combine this with what I know from the Evidence, does it go anywhere? Does it get me all the way to the idea in the Conclusion? ( * some of us might scheme an exotic scenario in which you're not consulted, but you give your consent anyway ... you proactively email the chairperson consent, without her needing to consult you. You're not wrong. It's a sloppy correct answer for something that's supposed to be 100% airtight. LSAC just be sloppy sometimes, and we have to go with best available)
Skill tested: Sufficient Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
40% picked this
All of the members of
Opposite
This seems impossible, given that they weren't consulted about it. But if they all signed it, that would weaken the author's case that "this shouldn't have been released! the other members had no idea!"
1% picked this
The chairperson would not have
Bad Premise Match
This has an "if" attached to the second half of the sentence. IF = sufficient, put it on the left. any members had not justified serious reservations → in releasing about report's content report The right side matches our Conclusion. Does the Evidence establish that "at least one member had serious reservations about the report's content"? No, not at all. Since they weren't consulted, how could even possibly know whether anyone had serious reservations? If this were phrased, "If the chairperson doesn't know whether any members have serious reservations, then she's not justified in releasing", it would be a correct answer.
14% picked this
The chairperson would have been
Bad Premise Match
This has an "only if". ONLY IF = necessary, put it on the right. We would contrapose this so that we can get "chairperson would not have been justified" on the right side. at least one member not justified would not have → in releasing agreed to release The right side matches our Conclusion. Does the Evidence establish that "at least one member would not have agreed to release the report had they been consulted"? No. It only says they weren't consulted. For all we know, had they been consulted, they might have all said "Yes, that's fine".
33% picked this
Some members of the commission
Trap
Too Weak = some Unrelated to Goal = shouldn't release This is Sufficient Assumption, so if we don't have a rule that allows us to derive the idea "should not have released report", it's not going to allow us to derive that conclusion.
12% 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