Logical Reasoning

PT151 · S2 · Q22 Counselor: To be kind to someone

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

Counselor: To be kind to someone, one must want that person to prosper.

Conditionals

Kind to someone → want them to prosper

Dislike each other → can't be fully content in their presence

Don't dislike each → Kind to each other other

Fact

Two people who dislike each other may treat each other with respect.

Evaluation

On Inference questions, if we get multiple conditionals, we want to ask ourselves if any of them chain together. The idea of "kind" show up twice, giving us this chain:

Don't dislike → Kind to → Want each other each other each other to prosper

The idea of whether or not two people dislike each other also showed up twice. If we contrapose the 2nd rule listed above, we can chain 4 ideas together.

Can be Don't Kind to Want each fully → dislike → each → other to content each other prosper other

When it comes to the fact, it overlapped with "two people who dislike each other". We know that they can't be fully content in each other's presence, but they can (not must) treat each other with respect.

Goal

Look for an answer that contradicts any connection in our conditional chain (provides the trigger, but denies the outcome), or look for an answer that contradicts the idea that respect can coexist with "not fully content in your presence".

22.

If the counselor's statements are true, then which one of the following must be false?

  1. Some people who like each

    No Contradiction

    If this said "some people who dislike each other can be fully content in each other's presence", it would contradict something we know. If people like each other (or don't dislike), that only guarantees that they'll be kind and they'll want each other to prosper.

    7% picked this

  2. Correct

    Some people who are fully

    Why this is right

    This is rewarding us for having assembled the whole chain. If people are fully content in each other's presence, that guarantees that they don't dislike each other, are kind to each other, and want each other to prosper. This answer contradicts that last implication.

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

    39% picked this

  3. Some people who treat each

    Provides a Valid Inference

    This is what we said we could infer from combining "if you dislike each other --> not fully content" with "it's possible to dislike but still treat with respect".

    22% picked this

  4. Some people who want each

    No Contradiction

    If people dislike each other, then it must be true that they're never fully content in each other's presence (and that at least once they've treated each other with respect). That's all we know, so anything else we say about people who dislike each other is up for grabs. Could be true, who knows.

    22% picked this

  5. Some people who are kind

    No Contradiction

    If people are kind to each other, the only thing we know for sure is that they want each other to prosper. Anything else is up for grabs, so not being respectful to each other could be true.

    10% 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