Logical Reasoning

PT157 · S3 · Q4 Principle: It is unethical for 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

Principle: It is unethical for someone who has bought an item to return it to the store after getting all the use from it that he or she ever intended to get.

Principle

If someone buys an item, gets all of the use from it they intended to get, and returns it, then they are acting in an unethical way:

buy, use fully, and return → unethical

Evicence in Application

James bought an item and later returned it

Conclusion

The return was unethical

Evaluate

The evidence in the application doesn't state why James returned the video camera. The principle only allows us to conclude that the return was unethical if we have evidence that James got all of the use from the camera that he intended to get.

Goal

Look for an answer indicating that James got all of the use from the cameral that he intended.

4.

Which one of the following, if true, most justifies the above application of the principle?

  1. Before returning the camera, James

    Bad Trigger Match

    Using the camera "extensively" to record family members does not establish that James got all the use he intended from it. Extensive use is not the same as complete intended use. He might have bought the camera for a different purpose entirely, and the family recordings were just a bonus. Or he might have intended to use the camera extensively for many different occasions over a long period, making the family recordings only a fraction of his intended use. This answer provides evidence of significant use but not evidence that his intended use was fulfilled — which is what the principle requires.

    5% picked this

  2. Correct

    James bought the camera to

    Why this is right

    This answer establishes exactly what the principle requires. James bought the camera specifically to avoid hiring a videographer for his sister's graduation party. He returned the camera immediately after the party. This means James's entire intended use — recording the graduation party — was complete before the return. He got all the use he ever planned to get from the camera and then returned it, which satisfies all three conditions of the principle: purchase, fulfillment of intended use, and return. The return is therefore unethical under the stated principle.

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

    90% picked this

  3. James used the camera several

    Bad Trigger Match

    This answer does not tell us whether James got all his intended use from the camera. He used it several times, but the return was prompted by dropping it and discovering broken features — not by having completed his intended use. If anything, this suggests James returned the camera because it no longer worked properly, which is a legitimate reason for a return that falls outside the principle's scope. The principle addresses returns after getting full intended use, not returns due to product malfunction. The ethics of returning a damaged item is a separate question the principle does not address.

    2% picked this

  4. James returned the camera after

    Bad Trigger Match

    James returned the camera because he found a lower price at another store, not because he completed his intended use. This does not tell us whether James used the camera at all, let alone whether he got all his intended use from it. The ethics of returning an item to repurchase it at a lower price is an entirely different question from the one the principle addresses. The principle is about returning items after getting full intended use, not about price-matching strategies.

    1% picked this

  5. James used the camera in

    Bad Trigger Match

    This answer is cleverly worded but falls short. "Used the camera in the manner for which he bought it" is not the same as "got all the use from it that he ever intended to get." Consider someone who buys a camera to record an entire YouTube series. Recording one episode is using it "in the manner intended," but it is not getting all the intended use. The principle requires that the full scope of intended use be completed, not merely that the item was used for its intended purpose. James used the camera as intended but thought a different one would work better — suggesting he planned to continue using a camera, meaning his intended use was not fulfilled.

    2% 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