The justification Helen offers

Answer choices

1. A

   Out of Scope11% picked this

   ignores an important moral distinction between saying something that is false and failing to say something that one

   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%
2. B

   Wrong Flaw: not Causal13% picked this

   confuses having identified one cause of a given effect with having eliminated the possibility of there being any

   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%
3. C

   Out of Scope Distinction5% picked this

   judges behavior that is outside an individual’s control according to moral standards that can properly be applied only to behavior

   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%
4. D

   Contradicted3% picked this

   relies on an illegitimate appeal to pity to obscure the fact that the conclusion does not logically follow

   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%
5. E

   Correct68% picked this

   attempts to justify a judgment about a particular case by citing a general principle that stands in far greater need of support

   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%