Logical Reasoning

PT149 · S4 · Q18 Sanderson intentionally did not tell

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

Sanderson intentionally did not tell his cousin about overhearing someone say that the factory would close, knowing that if he withheld this information, his cousin would assume it would remain open.

Conclusion

It was morally wrong for Sanderson to intentionally withhold from his cousin the fact that he overheard someone say the factory would close.

Evidence

Making a statement with the intention of misleading is lying. Lying is morally wrong. + Yes, Sanderson didn't actually make a statement, but there's no difference between stating something and failing to state something if they are done with the same intention.

Evaluation

We're trying to conclude that an action is morally wrong, and the author has provided us with the conditional rules we'll be using to try to derive that idea.

According to these rules, if you make an intentionally misleading statement, it's lying, which is morally wrong.

We know Sanderson didn't make an intentionally misleading statement, but our author is saying that Sanderson intended to mislead by failing to say something (and those are morally equivalent).

On a first read, it's hard for me to see the wiggle room here. According to these rules, isn't Sanderson guilty of something morally wrong?

If Sanderson's failure to say something was done with the intent to mislead, then he was lying, and so he did something morally wrong.

So how can we argue that Sanderson's failure to say something was not done with the intent to mislead?

We know that Sanderson was aware that by withholding info, his cousin would assume the factory would remain open. Do we know for a fact that

We don't. The person that Sanderson overheard is not necessarily right about the factory. If Sanderson knows that random dude who said "the factory is gonna close" is dead wrong about that, then withholding that story from his cousin, and letting his cousin continue to believe that the factory will remain open, is not intentionally misleading.

If I overhear an anti-vaxxer saying that "vaccines cause autism" and I refrain from saying that to my cousin, knowing that my cousin will otherwise (continue to) think that vaccines don't cause autism, I'm not intentionally misleading my cousin or lying to her. I'm just protecting her from what I believe is erroneous information.

Goal

Since the only possible objection to this argument is, , the correct answer will probably rule out one of those objections.

- Sanderson does not think the factory will remain open - Sanderson believed the person he overheard was saying something true

18.

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?

Sanderson believed that his cousin
Out of Scope
Out of Scope: "want to be informed" The language of these rules / considerations is really only about truth / falsity, and whether or not we're misleading. The issue of whether or not we're pleasing someone's desire is irrelevant.
5% picked this
No one ever told Sanderson's
Too Strong
Too Strong: "no one told the cousin" It wouldn't hurt the argument to negate this and get, "at least one person told Sanderson's cousin about the factory closing". That wouldn't change anything. I can be rightfully accused of lying to my cousin about X, even if some other person told my cousin the truth about X.
5% picked this
Correct
Sanderson believed that the factory
Why this is right
If we negate this, it is an objection! If Sanderson didn't think the factory was actually closing, then Sanderson would have heard the person who said "it's closing" and thought, "no it isn't". This would mean that allowing his cousin to continue believing that the factory would remain open wasn't an act of deliberate misleading by Sanderson. It would mean that by withholding the story about the guy he overheard, Sanderson was allowing his cousin to continue believe what Sanderson himself believed to be true. In other words, you have to establish that Sanderson believes the factory is closing, in order for it to qualify as deliberately misleading when Sanderson allows his cousin to believe that the factory will remain open.
Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
57% picked this
Sanderson would have lied to
Out of Scope: Predicts a Hypothetical
Answers that predict what would happen in a hypothetical or counterfactual situation are almost always wrong on Necessary Assumption. Our author might think that Sanderson lied through omission, but our author could still believe that Sanderson wouldn't have lied outright. If we negate this answer and learn that Sanderson might have told the truth if his cousin has asked him point-blank about the factory, that doesn't hurt the author's argument. She could just say, "I'm glad he would be honest if confronted, but that doesn't change the fact that his misleading omission still qualifies as a morally wrong lie."
27% picked this
Sanderson had something to gain
Out of Scope: something to gain
So cynical, (E). We don't have to assume anything about what Sanderson's possible motivations could have been, if he in fact was trying to mislead his cousin.
5% 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