Logical Reasoning

PT23 · S3 · Q22 The justification Helen offers

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

Helen: It was wrong of my brother Mark to tell our mother that the reason he had missed her birthday party the evening before was that he had been in a traffic accident and that by the time he was released from the hospital emergency room the party was long over.

Conclusion (it was wrong)

It was wrong for Mark to tell mom that he missed her party because by the time he got out of the ER after his traffic accident, it was too late.

Evidence

It was false for him to say that.

And saying something that is false can never be anything other than morally wrong.

Evaluate

The final two premises don't really give us any way to argue with the logic. We know Mark said something false. They provide a conditional rule that says, "saying something false is always morally wrong". So then, didn't the author successfully prove her conclusion that what Mark did was wrong?

There isn't actually any way to argue that the premises don't imply the conclusion.

Goal

We might just have to check out the answers here, since our training would leave us unprepared for this moment. There's not any gap in logic between the evidence and the conclusion, and yet they're asking us how the argument is flawed. Hmmm ....

22.

The justification Helen offers for her judgment of Mark’s behavior is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the justification

ignores an important moral distinction
Out of Scope
Out of Scope: failing to tell truth This distinction is never at play in the argument. We're only dealing with Mark saying something that is false, never with Mark failing to say something that he knows to be true. This answer is referring to a "lie by omission". Like if you knew that your buddy Phil was talking to a woman who asked him for directions, and then Phil's girlfriend walks out of the bathroom and is like, "Omigod, did Phil go over and start hitting on that girl?!" If you were to say nothing, getting Phil in trouble, it would be unfair to say you lied to his girlfriend. After all, you didn't say anything false. You just failed to say something you know to be true.
11% picked this
confuses having identified one cause
Wrong Flaw: not Causal
Nothing in this argument has anything to do with cause / effect. The argument is just, "Mark lied. Lying is always wrong. Mark did something wrong."
13% picked this
judges behavior that is outside
Out of Scope Distinction
The argument never deals with the distinction between stuff out of your control / in your control. It was in Mark's control to remember the party (he might have had to just make a calendar alert or something). It was in Mark's control to tell the truth to his mom about forgetting about the party.
5% picked this
relies on an illegitimate appeal
Contradicted
Helen is definitely not appealing to pity. She's actually incriminating her brother, because he lied. She's not saying, "Have mercy; he feels really bad about it." More importantly, the conclusion does follow logically from the premises. That's why we got so confused about what this Flaw question wants us to say.
3% picked this
Correct
attempts to justify a judgment
Why this is right
The author is making a judgment about a particular case (it was wrong for Mark to tell my mom that ER story). She does cite a general principle as part of her support: saying something that is false can never be other than morally wrong This answer is saying, "Don't worry about the conclusion (the particular judgment). Worry more about that crazy principle you're citing. Who says saying something false is always morally wrong? When I ask my 5 year old what 8 + 9 is, and she says "15", she has said something false, and thus she has done something morally wrong? When she asks me if her drawing is good and say yes (even though it's not), have I done something morally wrong? There's a huge gap between saying something false and being deliberately dishonest in the lying sense. This is a very unique question in LSAT's canon. There have been 3-5 Weaken questions ever that seem to basically contradict one of the premises or just hurt the argument by making it seem like the premise is just bad data. But this is the only one I've ever seen where they seemingly wanted us to just complain about a bogus premise. We can be forgiven for not noticing, but the question stem doesn't ask the typical version of Flaw, which says "the argument/reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism for what reason". Instead, it says "the justification (the evidence) is most vulnerable to criticism for what reason".
Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
68% 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