Logical Reasoning

PT18 · S4 · Q18 Professor Hartley’s new book on moral philosophy

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

Professor Hartley’s new book on moral philosophy contains numerous passages that can be found verbatim in an earlier published work by Hartley’s colleague, Professor Lawrence.

Conclusion

H has been dishonest is not acknowledging the intellectual debt owed to L. (i.e. H borrowed intellectual property from L)

Evidence

H's new book contains numerous passages that are found verbatim in L's earlier book. In H's book, these passages are not attributed to L.

Evaluate

We could use a Curious Fact / Explanation mindset for this, since the author is interpreting a curious matter.

Curious Fact Why are there passages in H's book that appeared earlier in L's book, but aren't attributed to L?

Author's Explanation H has taken these ideas from L and is now dishonestly presenting them as her own.

With this template, we think through two lenses: - could there be some Other Way to interpret this curious fact? - how plausible is the Author's Interpretation?

How else could we explain the verbatim passages that appear in both books? - Maybe H actually said this stuff first, and L stole it (perhaps L was just able to publish his book before H could publish hers)

- Maybe these passages are just from the Bible or from Kanye West, and so naturally they wouldn't be attributed to Lawrence, since they're not his words to begin with.

Goal

Since this is Necessary Assumption, look for an answer ruling out an alternate story for why both books contain identical passages, or look for an answer supplying an idea that would need to be true for the author's story of H stealing from L to be plausible.

18.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument is based?

  1. Hartley could not have written

    Too Strong: could not have without

    The author doesn't need to assume that these passages were absolutely necessary to the book. Even if they weren't, the author would still be able to make the same case that H may have stolen the passages without fair attribution.

    8% picked this

  2. While writing the new book,

    Not Necessary

    This would Strengthen but it isn't necessary. In order for H to have "stolen" the material from L, does she need to have obtained it via a manuscript? No, of course not. Maybe L emailed H these passages at some point to get H's feedback. Maybe L often quotes these passages aloud in the university teacher's lounge. Maybe H just got these passages from the final published version of L's book (not the manuscript).

    20% picked this

  3. A book on moral philosophy

    Out of Scope: should

    Nothing in this argument is normative, so we can't say the author is assuming anything about what "should" be the case. Whether a moral philosophy book should / shouldn't include anything besides the author's thoughts doesn't affect whether or not this book did / didn't steal L's material without proper attribution.

    6% picked this

  4. Correct

    Lawrence did not get the

    Why this is right

    This rules out an alternate explanation. If we negate it, this answer badly weakens the argument (which tells us that this answer is something that needs to be assumed). NEGATION: Lawrence got the ideas in the passages originally from Hartley. This would badly weaken the author's story that Hartley stole the ideas from Lawrence.

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

    66% picked this

  5. Hartley considered the passages in

    Too Strong: best possible

    It doesn't matter whether H considered these passages to be the "best" possible expression, the 2nd best, the 3rd best. She obviously considered them "good enough" to put in her book, but the author's argument isn't affected in any way if Hartley thought these expressions were "good enough, even if not the best possible".

    1% 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