Logical Reasoning

PT149 · S4 · Q13 Rhonda: As long as the cost

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

Rhonda: As long as the cost is not too great, you should use your time, energy, or money to help others.

Rhonda's Conclusion

You should use your time/energy/money to help others.

Rhonda's Evidence

People active with charities have richer lives than miserly hermits.

Brad's Conclusion

Ignore strangers and focus on your relatives/friends

Brad's Evidence

These people will remember what you did for them and help you when you need it.

Evaluation

What a weird question task. We need a principle that will help both arguments. So we need to think about where's there's overlap in Brad and Rhonda's conclusion and in their premises.

Both conclusions are about where you should focus your time and energy. So the principle should sound something like you should focus your time and energy on xyz

Rhonda wants to focus on others, probably strangers, because she thinks that people involved in charities live richer lives. Brad wants to focus on people we know, because they'll be more likely to repay the favor one day.

What do those have in common? Both of them are choosing who to focus on by thinking about what you'll get in return: richer life / help when you need it.

Goal

It seems like we'll need a principle that sounds something like, .

13.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, would most help to justify both Rhonda's and Brad's arguments?

  1. One should always do what

    Bad Brad Match

    This would help Rhonda argue that we should be charitable givers, but it doesn't really help Brad argue that we should help family/friends. Technically, neither person argued based on "maximizing benefit for others".

    5% picked this

  2. One should treat others as

    Bad Rhonda Match

    Brad's argument consists of some reciprocity: you help them now, and they'll remember and help you out when you need it. Rhonda's, though, does not say you should give to others because they will give back to you. She says do it because it leads to a richer life.

    6% picked this

  3. Correct

    One should act in ways

    Why this is right

    What a silly-simple moral principle: if it helps you, do it. As we examined, the common ingredient of Brad and Rhonda's rationale was that the giver would stand to benefit (either by getting help later when they needed it or by living a richer life). So this principle helps both of them argue for their advice.

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

    77% picked this

  4. One should make sacrifices for

    Bad Rhonda Match

    This aligns with Brad's thinking about our family/friends remembering what we did for them and returning the favor when we need it. But it contains nothing that has to do with Rhonda's "help others so that you'll have a richer life" argument.

    3% picked this

  5. One should always act in

    Bad Match For Both

    Neither of them cite "do this, so that you can reflect with pride" as a basis for their advice.

    9% 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