Logical Reasoning

PT6 · S3 · Q9 Until he was dismissed amid

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

Until he was dismissed amid great controversy, Hastings was considered one of the greatest intelligence agents of all time.

Conclusion (Thus / forced to conclude)

Hastings must have been disloyal.

Evidence

If Hastings's dismissal was justified, then he was either incompetent or disloyal. After his dismissal, it was shown he was not incompetent.

Evaluate

This is a pretty straightforward conditional logic style argument.

Its desired flow is like this - If X, then Y or Z. - This thing is X, but it isn't Z. - Thus, it must be Y

That would be airtight logic, but this argument never provided the "this thing is X" claim. It never triggered the conditional rule it's trying to use.

We call this an Untriggered Conditional. The argument hinges on whether or not the dismissal was actually justified.

Goal

The author is assuming the dismissal was justified, since she's trying to use that rule. If the dismissal weren't justified, she wouldn't have an argument.

9.

Which one of the following states an assumption upon which the argument depends?

  1. Correct

    Hastings’s dismissal was justified.

    Why this is right

    This affirms the trigger of the conditional, which then makes the rest of the argument make logical sense. If we negate it, saying his dismissal was not justified, then the author's evidence suddenly becomes irrelevant.

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

    79% picked this

  2. Hastings was a high-ranking intelligence

    Out of Scope: High-ranking

    Whether he was high or lower ranking doesn't change the logic of the argument. The argument was never discussing the ranking of officers.

    0% picked this

  3. The dismissal of anyone who

    Too Strong / Reversal (if anything)

    We have a conditional saying Justified --> Disloyal or Incompetent This answer is saying Disloyal --> Justified The author didn't assume this reversal and doesn't need to assume that every single case of a disloyal person being dismissed is justified.

    7% picked this

  4. Anyone whose dismissal was justified

    Opposite (if anything)

    The argument names two reasons for justified dismissal (incompetence or disloyalty), so assuming that all justified dismissals equal disloyalty contradicts the evidence given.

    2% picked this

  5. If someone was disloyal or

    Reversal / Negation

    We have a conditional saying Justified --> Disloyal or Incompetent This answer is just giving an illegal reversal of that rule: Disloyal or incompetent --> Justified

    11% 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