Logical Reasoning

PT146 · S2 · Q10 One who has borrowed an item

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

One who has borrowed an item from someone and promised to return it by a certain date should do so if it would not be difficult to return it on time and the person from whom one has borrowed it has not given permission to return the item late.

Principle

if = sufficient

Wouldn't be hard to return a borrowed item on time should return and → item on time Person you borrowed from didn't extend deadline

Goal

The "if" told us that the trigger was the second half of the statement. We need to be mindful of the "and" because there are two criteria that need to be established before we can conclude that the person "should return the borrowed item on time".

We should remind ourselves that this rule only has the power to prove you should return an item on time (you can only prove what's on the right side of the arrow), so we can summarily reject any answers trying to prove someone shouldn't.

10.

The principle stated above most helps to justify the reasoning in which one of the following arguments?

  1. Christopher told Sumi that the

    Bad Conclusion Match

    The only conclusion this principle can support is that "X should return the borrowed item". The conclusion here is, "it would be wrong for X to return the borrowed item earlier than Friday".

    0% picked this

  2. Nick promised Wanda that he

    Bad Evidence Match

    The conclusion here is correctly saying "Nick should return the borrowed item on time (by tomorrow)". Did the evidence establish that 1. it wouldn't be difficult 2. the borrower has not been granted an extension The conclusion is essentially saying, "in the event that #2 is true, Nick should return it, even if #1 isn't true". But if it's difficult for Nick to return it on time, then this principle won't apply to him and thus can't instruct him to return a borrowed item on time.

    2% picked this

  3. Val should return Ted's car

    Bad Evidence Match

    The conclusion here is correctly saying "Val should return the borrowed item on time (today)". Did the evidence establish that 1. it wouldn't be difficult 2. the borrower has not been granted an extension It establishes #1, that it wouldn't be difficult for Val to return the car today. But it contradicts #2. Val has been given an extension by Ted. He said she can return it late. Since we don't have both prongs of our two-pronged trigger, we can't apply this principle to Val's situation.

    3% picked this

  4. Yesenia borrowed Mike's computer, and

    Bad Evidence Match

    The conclusion here is correctly saying "Yesenia should return the borrowed item on time (by tomorrow)". Did the evidence establish that 1. it wouldn't be difficult 2. the borrower has not been granted an extension Yes, it says that it wouldn't be difficult for her to return it and that Mike hasn't given an extension; his deadline is tomorrow. We might be initially stuck between this and (E), unless we were better at writing all the qualifying parts of the original principle than we were in our write-up. The reality is, on these Principle-Conform questions where we're given a rule, we sometimes miss some of the subtle details in our endeavor to pare it down to the key criteria. If we have two answers that both seem to work, then we need to re-read the stimulus to see if we've missed any details. In reality, our principle should have read: Promised to return an item by a certain date and Wouldn't be hard to return should return a borrowed item on time → item on time and Person you borrowed from didn't extend deadline What's missing in this answer choice is that Yesenia never promised to return the computer by a certain date, so we can't apply this principle to her situation.

    4% picked this

  5. Correct

    Oliver borrowed Madeline's guitar from

    Why this is right

    This establishes the three criteria of the principle: 1. X promised to return a borrowed item by a certain date Oliver promised to bring back the borrowed guitar today 2. X didn't get an extension on the deadline Madeline has not given him permission to return it late 3. It would not be difficult for X to return on time it would be easy for Oliver to return the guitar And then it concludes the right side: Oliver should return the guitar on time (today).

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

    91% 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