Exam LSAT Section 1 Logical Reasoning topic 1 question 189 discussion

Actual exam question from Test Prep's LSAT Section 1 Logical Reasoning

Question #: 189
Topic #: 1

[All LSAT Section 1 Logical Reasoning Questions]

When investigators discovered that the director of a local charity had repeatedly overstated the number of people his charity had helped, the director accepted responsibility for the deception. However, the investigators claimed that journalists were as much to blame as the director was for inflating the charity's reputation, since they had naively accepted what the director told them, and simply reported as fact the numbers he gave them.
Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the investigators' claim?

A. Anyone who works for a charitable organization is obliged to be completely honest about the activities of that organization.
B. Anyone who knowingly aids a liar by trying to conceal the truth from others is also a liar.
C. Anyone who presents as factual a story that turns out to be untrue without first attempting to verify that story is no less responsible for the consequences of that story than anyone else is.
D. Anyone who lies in order to advance his or her own career is more deserving of blame than someone who lies in order to promote a good cause.
E. Anyone who accepts responsibility for a wrongful act that he or she committed is less deserving of blame than someone who tries to conceal his or her own wrongdoing.

Show Suggested Answer

Suggested Answer: C 🗳️
The director of the charity repeatedly lied about the number of people helped by the charity, but when confronted by the investigators, accepted responsibility for the deception. But the investigators oddly blame the journalists as much as the director for misrepresenting the charitys beneficence, because they unquestioningly printed the numbers they were told.
The journalists didnt fabricate the storythey merely printed the numbers they were given. It seems that the investigators believe that printing erroneous information without checking it is on a par with making up that info in the first place. The principle in C. embodies that notion, and thus supports the investigators claim. The description in the first part of the choice clearly applies to the journalists; the phrase "no less responsible" in the middle matches up perfectly with "as much to blame as..."; and "than anyone else" clearly includes the director. C. hits on all cylinders, while the other choices stray from or distort the scope of the situation.

by [deleted] at March 9, 2025, 1:32 p.m.

Comments

Submit Cancel

Currently there are no comments in this discussion, be the first to comment!