Beyond Assumption Family Questions

Up until now, we've focused almost exclusively on Assumption Family questions. We've looked at Assumption questions, Flaw questions, Strengthen questions, Weaken questions, and Principle Support questions. All of these require that we find the argument core, and then choose an answer to address that core.

Now it's time to move beyond Assumption Family questions. The first NON-Assumption Family question type we'll look at is called Principle Example. This type is not to be confused with Principle Support questions that we studied earlier.

images

Principle Support Review

Remember that Principle Support questions are Assumption Family questions. They require us to find the core in a given argument, then choose a principle that supports that core by bridging the gap between the premise and the conclusion. Here's a very simple example to jog your memory:

The bag of cash that Sanjay found was not claimed by anyone. Thus, Sanjay should keep the bag of cash for himself.

This argument has a premise and conclusion, and a pretty significant gap between the two. If this were a Principle Support question, we would want to choose a principle to bridge the gap. Perhaps the correct answer would be something like:

One should keep for himself anything that he finds that is not claimed by anyone else.

If we insert the principle into the core, we get:

The bag of cash that Sanjay found was not claimed by anyone. (One should keep for himself anything that he finds that is not claimed by anyone else.) Thus, Sanjay should keep the bag of cash for himself.

In short, we're given an argument and we're asked to choose a principle to support the argument. We know we're dealing with a Principle Support question when we get language such as:

Which one of the following PRINCIPLES most helps to JUSTIFY the reasoning above?

Which one of the following PRINCIPLES provides the most SUPPORT for the argument?

Principle Example questions are different. For Principle Example questions, we're given a principle and then asked to choose an example that conforms to that principle.

The Principle Example Mind-set: Conform to the Conditions

Have a look at this. You'll notice that this is the same principle from above:

One should keep for himself anything that he finds that is not claimed by anyone else.

Which one of the following judgments most closely CONFORMS to the PRINCIPLE above?

This time, the principle is given to us and we're asked to choose an answer that conforms to the principle. Did you notice that the principle can be expressed in conditional terms? The word “anything” should have been a clue.

he found it
+
no one else claimed it		 images he should keep for himself

Here's an answer choice that would work:

The bag of cash that Sanjay found was not claimed by anyone. Thus, Sanjay should keep the bag of cash for himself.

Notice that the statement above satisfies the criteria in the sufficient condition (found it + no one claimed it), which means the necessary condition is triggered (he should keep it).

Much of the time (not always), this is how these questions work. We're given a general principle that can be expressed in conditional form, and then we're asked to choose an answer that conforms to the conditional statement.

Pretty easy, right? Let's try it on a real LSAT question. Focus on getting a good translation of the principle. Give yourself 1:20 for the following question, and then we'll discuss.

PT23, S3, Q24

A person's failure to keep a promise is wrong only if, first, doing so harms the one to whom the promise is made and, second, all of those who discover the failure to keep the promise lose confidence in the person's ability to keep promises.

Which one of the following judgments most closely conforms to the principle above?

(A) Ann kept her promise to repay Felicia the money she owed her. Further, this convinced everyone who knew Ann that she is trustworthy. Thus, Ann's keeping her promise was not wrong.

(B) Jonathan took an oath of secrecy concerning the corporation's technical secrets, but he sold them to a competitor. His action was wrong even though the corporation intended that he leak these secrets to its competitors.

(C) George promised to repay Reiko the money he owed her. However, George was unable to keep his promise to Reiko and as a result, Reiko suffered a serious financial loss. Thus, George's failure to keep his promise was wrong.

(D) Because he lost his job, Carlo was unable to repay the money he promised to Miriam. However, Miriam did not need this money nor did she lose confidence in Carlo's ability to keep promises. So, Carlo's failure to keep his promise to Miriam was not wrong.

(E) Elizabeth promised to return the book she borrowed from Steven within a week, but she was unable to do so because she became acutely ill. Not knowing this, Steven lost confidence in her ability to keep a promise. So, Elizabeth's failure to return the book to Steven was wrong.

Were you able to translate the original principle into a conditional statement? If you had trouble, go back and start with the “only if” conditional trigger. Try it again before reading on.

Here's how the principle breaks down into conditional form:

failure to keep promise is wrong images harm
+
lost confidence

We can split this into two conditionals:

failure to keep promise is wrong images harm
failure to keep promise is wrong images lost confidence

Now, we're looking for an answer choice that conforms to one of both of these conditional statements. If you had to guess, what do you think the wrong answers will look like? You got it. The wrong answers are likely to reverse the logic or negate the logic. Let's look at the answer choices.

(A) Ann kept her promise to repay Felicia the money she owed her. Further, this convinced everyone who knew Ann that she is trustworthy. Thus, Ann's keeping her promise was not wrong.

We know what happens when failing to keep a promise is wrong (there are two outcomes), but do we know anything about what happens when a promise is kept? We don't. This answer does not conform to the principle, so we can eliminate it.

(B) Jonathan took an oath of secrecy concerning the corporation's technical secrets, but he sold them to a competitor. His action was wrong even though the corporation intended that he leak these secrets to its competitors.

Jonathan failed to keep a promise, and this was apparently wrong, but this answer gives no indication of whether this leads to harm or lost confidence. In other words, we get no necessary condition with this answer choice. This does not conform to the principle.

(C) George promised to repay Reiko the money he owed her. However, George was unable to keep his promise to Reiko and as a result, Reiko suffered a serious financial loss. Thus, George's failure to keep his promise was wrong.

Harm was done to Reiko, so George's failure to keep his promise was wrong.

harm images failure to keep promise is wrong

This is reversed logic! This answer looks attractive because it contains many of the component parts of the conditional statement, but it does not conform.

(D) Because he lost his job, Carlo was unable to repay the money he promised to Miriam. However, Miriam did not need this money nor did she lose confidence in Carlo's ability to keep promises. So, Carlo's failure to keep his promise to Miriam was not wrong.

Miriam was NOT harmed, nor did she lose confidence in Carlo's ability to keep promises. Thus, Carlo's failure to keep his promise was not wrong.

–harm images –failure to keep promise is wrong
–lost confidence images –failure to keep promise is wrong

Does this conform? Indeed it does. This answer choice represents the contrapositive of the original principle. This is the correct answer.

(E) Elizabeth promised to return the book she borrowed from Steven within a week, but she was unable to do so because she became acutely ill. Not knowing this, Steven lost confidence in her ability to keep a promise. So, Elizabeth's failure to return the book to Steven was wrong.

Steven lost confidence in Elizabeth's ability to keep a promise, so Elizabeth's failure to return the book (or, Elizabeth's failure to keep her promise) was wrong.

lost confidence images failure to keep promise is wrong

Another answer choice with reversed logic. This does not conform.

Let's try another one. Take 1:20, and then we'll discuss.

PT28, S1, Q10

It is a principle of economics that a nation can experience economic growth only when consumer confidence is balanced with a small amount of consumer skepticism.

Which one of the following is an application of the economic principle above?

(A) Any nation in which consumer confidence is balanced with a small amount of consumer skepticism will experience economic growth.

(B) Any nation in which the prevailing attitude of consumers is not skepticism will experience economic growth.

(C) Any nation in which the prevailing attitude of consumers is either exclusively confidence or exclusively skepticism will experience economic growth.

(D) Any nation in which the prevailing attitude of consumers is exclusively confidence will not experience economic growth.

(E) Any nation in which consumer skepticism is balanced with a small amount of consumer confidence will experience economic growth.

We're looking for an answer choice that is an “application” of the economic principle given. In other words, we're looking for an answer that conforms to the principle (in either its original form or its contrapositive). The “only when” in the principle is a clue that we should translate the principle into a conditional statement. If you didn't do this the first time through, take a second to try it now.

“Only when” functions exactly the same way as “only if.” So, we can translate as follows:

economic growth images consumer confidence balanced with small amount of consumer skepticism

Let's evaluate the choices. Watch out for common conditional traps!

(A) Any nation in which consumer confidence is balanced with a small amount of consumer skepticism will experience economic growth.
consumer confidence balanced with small amount of consumer skepticism images economic growth

Reversed logic! This does not conform. Eliminate it.

(B) Any nation in which the prevailing attitude of consumers is not skepticism will experience economic growth.

This says nothing about having a “balance” of confidence and skepticism. Besides, this logic moves in the wrong direction as well.

(C) Any nation in which the prevailing attitude of consumers is either exclusively confidence or exclusively skepticism will experience economic growth.

If the consumer attitude is either exclusively confidence or exclusively skepticism, then there is NO balance. So, this is saying NO balance leads to economic growth.

–consumer confidence balanced with small amount of consumer skepticism images economic growth

This does not conform to the original principle. Eliminate it.

(D) Any nation in which the prevailing attitude of consumers is exclusively confidence will not experience economic growth.

Again, if the attitude is exclusively confidence, then there is NO balance. And notice in this case this leads to NO economic growth. In other words, this is the reverse and negated form of the original:

–consumer confidence balanced with small amount of consumer skepticism images –economic growth

The contrapositive! This does conform, so this is the correct answer.

(E) Any nation in which consumer skepticism is balanced with a small amount of consumer confidence will experience economic growth.

This looks a lot like answer (A), reversed logic, but it has another problem as well. The modifier “small amount of” is attached to “consumer confidence.” In the original, this modifier is attached to “consumer skepticism.”

The Implied Principle

In the above questions, the principle was given to us directly. Sometimes, however, the LSAT will give us the principle indirectly by using a scenario to illustrate a principle. For example, imagine we had the following:

Professional athletes should donate a portion of their salary to projects that improve the local community, since most professional athletes make more money than they need.

In this case, our job involves an extra dimension: we need to extract the principle from an example before we match it to the answer choices. Remember, principles can be thought of in much the same way as assumptions—they complete the connection between the premises and conclusion. The argument above can be said to be an illustration of the following principle:

If one makes more money than one needs, then one should donate a portion of that money to the local community.

So, from the scenario we generate a principle, and, in this case, we can think of the principle in conditional terms:

make more money than needed images should donate some to community

Then, we would look for an answer choice that conforms.

So, how do you know when to evaluate the argument (as you would for an Assumption Family question) and how do you know when to generate a principle from the argument? It all comes down to the question stem. If the question asks you to choose an answer that conforms to the principle illustrated, you simply want to generate a principle from the given information. Let's see an example:

PT29, S4, Q10

Parents should not necessarily raise their children in the ways experts recommend, even if some of those experts are themselves parents. After all, parents are the ones who directly experience which methods are successful in raising their own children.

Which one of the following most closely conforms to the principle that the passage above illustrates?

(A) Although music theory is intrinsically interesting and may be helpful to certain musicians, it does not distinguish good music from bad: that is a matter of taste and not of theory.

(B) One need not pay much attention to the advice of automotive experts when buying a car if those experts are not interested in the mundane factors that concern the average consumer.

(C) In deciding the best way to proceed, a climber familiar with a mountain might do well to ignore the advice of mountain climbing experts unfamiliar with that mountain.

(D) A typical farmer is less likely to know what types of soil are most productive than is someone with an advanced degree in agricultural science.

(E) Unlike society, one's own conscience speaks with a single voice; it is better to follow the advice of one's own conscience than the advice of society.

The given information is clearly an argument. The premise is that parents directly experience which methods are successful and which ones are not. The conclusion is that parents shouldn't necessarily listen to experts. So, because parents have direct experience, they shouldn't always listen to experts. There are gaps in this argument, but this question asks us to choose an answer that conforms to the principle. We need to use the argument to generate a principle:

If one has direct experience, one should not necessarily act on the advice of experts.

direct experience images –act on advice of experts

 

(A) Although music theory is intrinsically interesting and may be helpful to certain musicians, it does not distinguish good music from bad: that is a matter of taste and not of theory.

This has nothing to do with having experience or listening to experts. Eliminate it.

(B) One need not pay much attention to the advice of automotive experts when buying a car if those experts are not interested in the mundane factors that concern the average consumer.

This does say that the advice of experts need not be heeded, but this answer choice is wrong. The advice of experts should not be heeded when “those experts are not interested….” This has nothing to do with the car buyer having direct experience. Eliminate it.

(C) In deciding the best way to proceed, a climber familiar with a mountain might do well to ignore the advice of mountain climbing experts unfamiliar with that mountain.

Ah, yes. The climber has direct experience, so she should ignore the advice of experts who are less familiar. This conforms to the principle, so this is the correct answer.

(D) A typical farmer is less likely to know what types of soil are most productive than is someone with an advanced degree in agricultural science.

So, should the farmer ignore the advice of experts? This isn't even close.

(E) Unlike society, one's own conscience speaks with a single voice; it is better to follow the advice of one's own conscience than the advice of society.

What about experts? What about experience? Wrong.

Conclusion

You're ready to try some on your own. First, let's review:

1. Don't confuse Principle Support with Principle Example! Principle Support questions ask you to support the argument by bridging the gap between the premise and the conclusion. The principle is the answer choice. Principle Example questions ask you to choose an answer that conforms to a given principle. No need to evaluate the logic of the argument.

2. Conform to the conditions. Many Principle Example questions will give you a principle that can be translated directly into conditional form. Your job is to choose the answer that conforms to the conditional statement.

3. Generate a principle when the principle is implied. Sometimes a scenario will be presented in argument form (with a premise and conclusion). Use this argument to generate a principle, and then choose an answer that conforms.

Now, let's practice.

DRILL IT: Principle Example Questions

Give yourself no more than 11 minutes to answer the following problems.

1. PT43, S3, Q5

Art critic: The aesthetic value of a work of art lies in its ability to impart a stimulating character to the audience's experience of the work.

Which one of the following judgments most closely conforms with the principle cited above?

(A) This painting is aesthetically deficient because it is an exact copy of a painting done 30 years ago.

(B) This symphony is beautiful because, even though it does not excite the audience, it is competently performed.

(C) This sculpted four-inch cube is beautiful because it is carved from material which, although much like marble, is very rare.

(D) This painting is aesthetically valuable because it was painted by a highly controversial artist.

(E) This poem is aesthetically deficient because it has little impact on its audience.

2. PT35, S1, Q7

Due to wider commercial availability of audio recordings of authors reading their own books, sales of printed books have dropped significantly.

Which one of the following conforms most closely to the principle illustrated above?

(A) Because of the rising cost of farm labor, farmers began to make more extensive use of machines.

(B) Because of the wide variety of new computer games on the market, sales of high-quality computer video screens have improved.

(C) Because a new brand of soft drink entered the market, consumers reduced their consumption of an established brand of soft drink.

(D) Because a child was forbidden to play until homework was completed, that child did much less daydreaming and focused on homework.

(E) Because neither of the two leading word processing programs has all of the features consumers want, neither has been able to dominate the market.

3. PT39, S2, Q11

A gift is not generous unless it is intended to benefit the recipient and is worth more than what is expected or customary in the situation; a gift is selfish if it is given to benefit the giver or is less valuable than is customary.

Which one of the following judgments most closely conforms to the principle above?

(A) Charles, who hates opera, was given two expensive tickets to the opera. He in turn gave them to his cousin, who loves opera, as a birthday gift. Charles's gift was selfish because he paid nothing for the tickets.

(B) Emily gives her brother a year's membership in a health club. She thinks that this will allow her brother to get the exercise he needs. However, the gift is selfish because Emily's brother is hurt and offended by it.

(C) Amanda gives each of her clients an expensive bottle of wine every year. Amanda's gifts are generous, since they cause the clients to continue giving Amanda business.

(D) Olga gives her daughter a computer as a graduation gift. Since this is the gift that all children in Olga's family receive for graduation, it is not generous.

(E) Michael gave his nephew $50 as a birthday gift, more than he had ever given before. Michael's nephew, however, lost the money. Therefore, Michael's gift was not generous because it did not benefit the recipient.

4. PT39, S4, Q24

A park's user fees are employed to maintain the park. When fewer people use the park, it suffers less wear. Thus raising user fees improves park maintenance even if the number of people who stop using the park because of higher fees is great enough to reduce the revenues devoted to maintenance.

Which one of the following conforms most closely to the principle illustrated by the statements above?

(A) To increase its market share, a car company improves the service warranty it provides to those who purchase a new car. Making good on the warranties proves expensive enough that the company's profits decrease even though its market share increases.

(B) A grocery store's overall revenues increase even though it no longer remains open 24 hours daily. The manager theorizes that customers find the store more pleasant because it can be cleaned well during the hours it is closed.

(C) Road taxes are raised to encourage more people to use mass transit. But since the fee paid by each commuter does not equal the cost of providing transit for that commuter, a mass transit service will deteriorate even as it takes in more money.

(D) By spending more on zoo maintenance, a city increases the number of zoo patrons. The extra revenue generated by the sale of memorabilia more than makes up for the extra costs of maintenance.

(E) Library fees have been increased to raise money for book repair. Since the library now has fewer patrons, the books are in better repair even though the number of library patrons has decreased to such an extent that the money available for book repair has decreased.

5. PT52, S1, Q22

Moralist: A statement is wholly truthful only if it is true and made without intended deception. A statement is a lie if it is intended to deceive or its speaker, upon learning that the statement was misinterpreted, refrains from clarifying it.

Which one of the following judgments most closely conforms to the principles stated above by the moralist?

(A) Ted's statement to the investigator that he had been abducted by extraterrestrial beings was wholly truthful even though no one has ever been abducted by extraterrestrial beings. After all, Ted was not trying to deceive the investigator.

(B) Tony was not lying when he told his granddaughter that he did not wear dentures, for even though Tony meant to deceive his granddaughter, she made it clear to Tony that she did not believe him.

(C) Siobhan did not tell a lie when she told her supervisor that she was ill and hence would not be able to come to work for an important presentation. However, even though her statement was true, it was not wholly truthful.

(D) Walter's claim to a potential employer that he had done volunteer work was a lie. Even though Walter had worked without pay in his father's factory, he used the phrase “volunteer work” in an attempt to deceive the interviewer into thinking he had worked for a socially beneficial cause.

(E) The tour guide intended to deceive the tourists when he told them that the cabin they were looking at was centuries old. Still, his statement about the cabin's age was not a lie, for if he thought that this statements had been misinterpreted, he would have tried to clarify it.

6. PT42, S2, Q9

Challenge can be an important source of self-knowledge, since those who pay attention to how they react, both emotionally and physically, to challenge can gain useful insights into their own weaknesses.

Which one of the following most closely conforms to the principle above?

(A) A concert pianist should not have an entirely negative view of a memory lapse during a difficult performance. By understanding why the memory lapse occurred, the pianist can better prepare for future performances.

(B) A salesperson should understand that the commission earned is not the only reward of making a sale. Salespeople should also take satisfaction from the fact that successful sales reflect well on their personalities.

(C) Compassion is valuable not only for the wonderful feelings it brings, but also for the opportunities it affords to enrich the lives of other people.

(D) While some of the value of competition comes from the pleasure of winning, the primary reward of competition is competition itself.

(E) Even people who dread public speaking should accept invitations to speak before large groups. People will admire their courage and they will experience the fulfillment of having attempted something that is difficult for them.

7. PT42, S2, Q21

If one has evidence that an act will benefit other people and performs that act to benefit them, then one will generally succeed in benefiting them.

Which one of the following best illustrates the proposition above?

(A) A country's leaders realized that fostering diplomatic ties with antagonistic nations reduces the chances of war with those nations. Because those leaders worried that war would harm their chances of being reelected, they engaged in diplomatic discussions with a hostile country, and the two countries avoided a confrontation.

(B) A government study concluded that a proposed bureaucratic procedure would allow people to register their cars without waiting in line. The government adopted the procedure for this reason, and, as with most bureaucratic procedures, it was not successful.

(C) Betsy overheard a heating contractor say that regularly changing the filter in a furnace helps to keep the furnace efficient. So Betsy has regularly changed the furnace filter in her daughter's house. As a result, the furnace has never required maintenance due to becoming clogged with dust or dirt.

(D) Sejal learned in a psychology class that the best way to help someone overcome an addiction is to confront that person. So she confronted her friend Bob, who was struggling with a chemical dependency.

(E) Zachary hoped that psychotherapy could help his parents overcome their marital difficulties. He persuaded his parents to call a psychotherapist, and eventually their problems were resolved.

8. PT42, S4, Q8

When presented with the evidence against him, Ellison freely admitted to engaging in illegal transactions using company facilities. However, the company obtained the evidence by illegally recording Ellison's conversations. Therefore, although the company may demand that he immediately cease, it cannot justifiably take any punitive measures against him.

Which one of the following judgments best illustrates the principle illustrated by the argument above?

(A) After Price confessed to having stolen money from Long over a period of several years, Long began stealing from Price. Despite Price's guilt, Long was not justified in taking illegal action against him.

(B) Shakila's secretary has admitted that he is illegally receiving cable television without paying for it. Shakila would not be justified in reporting him, though, since she once did the same thing.

(C) After Takashi told Sarah's parents that he had seen her at the movies on Tuesday, Sarah confessed to sneaking out that day. On Monday, however, Takashi had violated the local curfew for minors. Hence Sarah's parents cannot justifiably punish her in this case.

(D) After a conservation officer discovered them, Kuttner admitted that he had set the illegal animal traps on his land. But, because she was trespassing at the time, the conservation officer cannot justifiably punish Kuttner in this case.

(E) Ramirez was forced by the discovery of new evidence to admit that she lied about her role in managing the chief of staff's financial affairs. Nevertheless, the board of directors cannot justifiably take action against Ramirez, because in past instances it has pardoned others guilty of similar improprieties.

SOLUTIONS: Principle Example Questions

1. PT43, S3, Q5

Art critic: The aesthetic value of a work of art lies in its ability to impart a stimulating character to the audience's experience of the work.

Which one of the following judgments most closely conforms with the principle cited above?

(A) This painting is aesthetically deficient because it is an exact copy of a painting done 30 years ago.

(B) This symphony is beautiful because, even though it does not excite the audience, it is competently performed.

(C) This sculpted four-inch cube is beautiful because it is carved from material which, although much like marble, is very rare.

(D) This painting is aesthetically valuable because it was painted by a highly controversial artist.

(E) This poem is aesthetically deficient because it has little impact on its audience.

Answer choice (E) is correct.

We're given a principle that, though not obviously a conditional statement, can be translated into conditional form:

has aesthetic value images imparts a stimulating character to audience's experience

Now we just need to find an example that conforms to this conditional statement.

(A) is out of scope. We need to know whether the work is stimulating. Whether it's a copy doesn't tell us anything with respect to our principle.

(B) clearly violates the principle; if a work does not excite the audience, it doesn't have aesthetic value.

(C) is out of scope. Rareness is irrelevant.

(D) is similarly out of scope. Controversial artist?

That leaves answer (E).

We can translate this to:

–stimulating images –aesthetic value

That's the contrapositive of our original conditional statement, so it conforms to the principle. Therefore, answer choice (E) is correct.

2. PT35, S1, Q7

Due to wider commercial availability of audio recordings of authors reading their own books, sales of printed books have dropped significantly.

Which one of the following conforms most closely to the principle illustrated above?

(A) Because of the rising cost of farm labor, farmers began to make more extensive use of machines.

(B) Because of the wide variety of new computer games on the market, sales of high-quality computer video screens have improved.

(C) Because a new brand of soft drink entered the market, consumers reduced their consumption of an established brand of soft drink.

(D) Because a child was forbidden to play until homework was completed, that child did much less daydreaming and focused on homework.

(E) Because neither of the two leading word processing programs has all of the features consumers want, neither has been able to dominate the market.

Answer choice (C) is correct.

Here, we're not explicitly given a principle; we need to derive one from the example, something like:

wider availability of newer, competing product images decline in sales of older existing product

Now let's find an answer choice that conforms to our principle.

(A) is about rising cost, not availability, and it doesn't mention anything declining. Get rid of it.

(B) has wider availability of a new product leading to an increase in sales of a related product, so it's not a match.

(D) is just from outer space. No part of it comes close to our principle.

(E) makes no mention of a more widely available product driving down sales of another, so it's no good.

We're down to answer (C).

This looks pretty good:

new product available images decline in consumption (i.e., sales) of established product

This is definitely the closest fit, so answer (C) is correct.

3. PT39, S2, Q11

A gift is not generous unless it is intended to benefit the recipient and is worth more than what is expected or customary in the situation; a gift is selfish if it is given to benefit the giver or is less valuable than is customary.

Which one of the following judgments most closely conforms to the principle above?

(A) Charles, who hates opera, was given two expensive tickets to the opera. He in turn gave them to his cousin, who loves opera, as a birthday gift. Charles's gift was selfish because he paid nothing for the tickets.

(B) Emily gives her brother a year's membership in a health club. She thinks that this will allow her brother to get the exercise he needs. However, the gift is selfish because Emily's brother is hurt and offended by it.

(C) Amanda gives each of her clients an expensive bottle of wine every year. Amanda's gifts are generous, since they cause the clients to continue giving Amanda business.

(D) Olga gives her daughter a computer as a graduation gift. Since this is the gift that all children in Olga's family receive for graduation, it is not generous.

(E) Michael gave his nephew $50 as a birthday gift, more than he had ever given before. Michael's nephew, however, lost the money. Therefore, Michael's gift was not generous because it did not benefit the recipient.

Answer choice (D) is correct.

This principle can be broken down into four conditional statements if we split up the “and” and “or,” which can help avoid confusion:
generous images intended to benefit the recipient
generous images worth more than what is expected
intended to benefit giver images selfish
less valuable than customary images selfish

We're looking for an example that conforms to some or all of these rules, and we can expect some of the wrong answers to try to entice us with reversed or negated logic.

(A) concludes that a gift is selfish because it doesn't cost the giver any money. But according to our principle, the cost of the gift doesn't tell us anything; we would need to know the giver's intent or the value of the gift, which is different from its cost, to know whether it was selfish.

(B) concludes that a gift is selfish, but like (A), it doesn't base that conclusion on the gift's value or on the giver's intent, so it doesn't conform.

(C) concludes that a gift is generous. But looking back at our conditional statements, “generous” is always the sufficient condition, so we have no way of concluding whether something is generous.

(E) is tempting. It concludes that a gift is not generous because it doesn't benefit the recipient. But notice that the first necessary condition of a generous gift is that it is intended to benefit the recipient. Whether it actually benefits the recipient is irrelevant to the principle.

We're left with one answer: (D).

This one concludes that Olga's gift is not generous. Why? Because it's the gift that all the children in the family receive in that context—in other words, it's worth no more than what's expected. In terms of our principle, that gives us:

–worth more than expected images –generous

That's the contrapositive of the second conditional statement, so it conforms!

Therefore, answer (D) is correct.

4. PT39, S4, Q24

A park's user fees are employed to maintain the park. When fewer people use the park, it suffers less wear. Thus raising user fees improves park maintenance even if the number of people who stop using the park because of higher fees is great enough to reduce the revenues devoted to maintenance.

Which one of the following conforms most closely to the principle illustrated by the statements above?

(A) To increase its market share, a car company improves the service warranty it provides to those who purchase a new car. Making good on the warranties proves expensive enough that the company's profits decrease even though its market share increases.

(B) A grocery store's overall revenues increase even though it no longer remains open 24 hours daily. The manager theorizes that customers find the store more pleasant because it can be cleaned well during the hours it is closed.

(C) Road taxes are raised to encourage more people to use mass transit. But since the fee paid by each commuter does not equal the cost of providing transit for that commuter, a mass transit service will deteriorate even as it takes in more money.

(D) By spending more on zoo maintenance, a city increases the number of zoo patrons. The extra revenue generated by the sale of memorabilia more than makes up for the extra costs of maintenance.

(E) Library fees have been increased to raise money for book repair. Since the library now has fewer patrons, the books are in better repair even though the number of library patrons has decreased to such an extent that the money available for book repair has decreased.

Answer choice (E) is correct.

This one is a little trickier. Again, we need to derive a principle from the given statements. Since the statements are in argument form, isolating the premise and conclusion should allow us to generate the principle we need.

The argument concludes that raising user fees improves park maintenance, even if the higher fees dissuade enough people from coming that the maintenance revenues go down. That whole thing is the conclusion. It's based on the premise that when fewer people use the park, the park suffers less wear. So our argument core, abstracted away from the park example, looks like this:

fewer users means less wear images even if they lead to fewer users and lower revenues, raising fees improves maintenance.

So that's our principle, more or less. Now let's see if we can find the example that fits this principle most closely.

(A) talks about market share vs. profits, improving the service warranty, etc., which has nothing to do with fewer users, raising fees, maintenance, or anything we're interested in. It's way out of scope; eliminate it.

(B) is a bit more tempting, but we have no idea whether there are fewer users. Further, our principle is about revenues decreasing, not increasing.

(C) concludes that the mass transit service will deteriorate. Our principle is about maintenance being improved. Get rid of it.

(D) is also tempting, but it doesn't mention the zoo raising any fees, and it has the number of patrons increasing, when we're looking for a decrease.

So, how about the last answer: (E)?

Let's see: Raising fees has decreased the number of patrons to the extent that there's less book-repair money available, but because there are fewer patrons, the books are in better shape. This is a direct match!

So, answer (E) is correct.

5. PT52, S1, Q22

Moralist: A statement is wholly truthful only if it is true and made without intended deception. A statement is a lie if it is intended to deceive or its speaker, upon learning that the statement was misinterpreted, refrains from clarifying it.

Which one of the following judgments most closely conforms to the principles stated above by the moralist?

(A) Ted's statement to the investigator that he had been abducted by extraterrestrial beings was wholly truthful even though no one has ever been abducted by extraterrestrial beings. After all, Ted was not trying to deceive the investigator.

(B) Tony was not lying when he told his granddaughter that he did not wear dentures, for even though Tony meant to deceive his granddaughter, she made it clear to Tony that she did not believe him.

(C) Siobhan did not tell a lie when she told her supervisor that she was ill and hence would not be able to come to work for an important presentation. However, even though her statement was true, it was not wholly truthful.

(D) Walter's claim to a potential employer that he had done volunteer work was a lie. Even though Walter had worked without pay in his father's factory, he used the phrase “volunteer work” in an attempt to deceive the interviewer into thinking he had worked for a socially beneficial cause.

(E) The tour guide intended to deceive the tourists when he told them that the cabin they were looking at was centuries old. Still, his statement about the cabin's age was not a lie, for if he thought that this statements had been misinterpreted, he would have tried to clarify it.

Answer choice (D) is correct.

Here we're given a series of conditional statements. We're told of two necessary conditions for a statement to be wholly truthful (it must be true and made without intended deception) and two sufficient conditions that make a statement a lie (if it's intended to deceive or the speaker doesn't clarify it, it's a lie). We can express the conditionals like this:

wholly truthful images true
wholly truthful images not intended to deceive
intended to deceive images lie
speaker doesn't clarify misinterpretation images lie

Now we just need to find a statement that conforms with these conditionals, keeping an eye out for illegal negations and reversals.

(A) is reversed. Not intending to deceive is a necessary, not sufficient, condition of a wholly truthful statement.

(B) violates the principle, according to which Tony definitely was lying if he intended to deceive his granddaughter. Whether she believed him or not is irrelevant.

(C) says that a statement is not a lie and not wholly truthful, but doesn't base those judgments on any sufficient conditions.

(E) violates the principle in the same way as (B): the tour guide intended to deceive the tourists, so his statement was absolutely a lie—end of story!

That leaves answer (D).

Walter attempted to deceive the interviewer, so his statement was a lie. This directly conforms to our third conditional statement.

Therefore, answer (D) is correct.

6. PT42, S2, Q9

Challenge can be an important source of self-knowledge, since those who pay attention to how they react, both emotionally and physically, to challenge can gain useful insights into their own weaknesses.

Which one of the following most closely conforms to the principle above?

(A) A concert pianist should not have an entirely negative view of a memory lapse during a difficult performance. By understanding why the memory lapse occurred, the pianist can better prepare for future performances.

(B) A salesperson should understand that the commission earned is not the only reward of making a sale. Salespeople should also take satisfaction from the fact that successful sales reflect well on their personalities.

(C) Compassion is valuable not only for the wonderful feelings it brings, but also for the opportunities it affords to enrich the lives of other people.

(D) While some of the value of competition comes from the pleasure of winning, the primary reward of competition is competition itself.

(E) Even people who dread public speaking should accept invitations to speak before large groups. People will admire their courage and they will experience the fulfillment of having attempted something that is difficult for them.

Answer choice (A) is correct.

This principle is stated as an argument. The premise is that those who pay attention to their reactions to challenge can gain useful insights into their weaknesses. The conclusion is that challenge can therefore be an important source of self-knowledge. From this, we generate the principle:

paying attention to reactions to challenge leads to useful insights images challenge can be an important source of self-knowledge.

Now let's compare the answer choices to this principle.

(B) has nothing to do with challenge, insight, or self-knowledge. It's way out of scope; get rid of it.

(C) tells us two ways in which compassion is valuable, neither of which has anything to do with our principle; further, it's stated simply as fact, not as a conclusion supported by a premise.

(D) is incorrect in basically the same way: we get two ways in which competition is valuable, but it's not an argument, and it has nothing to do with challenge as a source of insights or self-knowledge.

(E) is an argument, at least, but our principle is about challenge being useful because it leads to useful insights, not because people admire your courage or because you experience fulfillment. So this doesn't conform.

So we're down to answer (A).

This looks like an argument: because understanding the cause of a memory lapse during a difficult performance can help the pianist better prepare, he shouldn't have an entirely negative view of it. Does this match? Well, “a difficult performance” is certainly a challenge, and the memory lapse is a reaction to it; understanding that reaction leads to better preparation, which sounds like a useful insight. So far, we've got our premise. Now does the conclusion match? Well, it's not exactly the same, since it doesn't talk about self-knowledge, but it does say that the pianist shouldn't have an entirely negative view, which does jive somewhat: if it's a source of self-knowledge, we can reasonably say it's not entirely a bad thing. So this is a pretty good match.

Therefore, answer (A) is correct.

7. PT42, S2, Q21

If one has evidence that an act will benefit other people and performs that act to benefit them, then one will generally succeed in benefiting them.

Which one of the following best illustrates the proposition above?

(A) A country's leaders realized that fostering diplomatic ties with antagonistic nations reduces the chances of war with those nations. Because those leaders worried that war would harm their chances of being reelected, they engaged in diplomatic discussions with a hostile country, and the two countries avoided a confrontation.

(B) A government study concluded that a proposed bureaucratic procedure would allow people to register their cars without waiting in line. The government adopted the procedure for this reason, and, as with most bureaucratic procedures, it was not successful.

(C) Betsy overheard a heating contractor say that regularly changing the filter in a furnace helps to keep the furnace efficient. So Betsy has regularly changed the furnace filter in her daughter's house. As a result, the furnace has never required maintenance due to becoming clogged with dust or dirt.

(D) Sejal learned in a psychology class that the best way to help someone overcome an addiction is to confront that person. So she confronted her friend Bob, who was struggling with a chemical dependency.

(E) Zachary hoped that psychotherapy could help his parents overcome their marital difficulties. He persuaded his parents to call psychotherapist, and eventually their problems were resolved.

Answer choice (C) is correct.

This principle is given as a straightforward conditional statement:

evidence that act will benefit others
+
performs act to benefit them		 images generally succeed in benefiting them

So we need to find an example that illustrates this conditional relationship.

(A) has people succeeding at something, but if we look closely, we see that the leaders engage in diplomacy in order to protect their own chances of being reelected, so they're performing the act to benefit themselves. We have the necessary condition, but not the sufficient. This doesn't conform.

(B) starts strong: the government has evidence (a study) that a procedure will help people and it adopts this procedure in order to help them. But according to our principle, this should generally lead to success; instead we're told that “as with most bureaucratic procedures, it was not successful.” This is the opposite of our desired outcome.

(D) gives us the sufficient conditions—Sejal has evidence that confrontation will help, and she confronts Bob with that goal—but we never find out the necessary, that is, whether she's successful.

(E) tells us that Zachary has hope, but not evidence, that psychotherapy will help his parents. Further, if psychotherapy is the act in question, Zachary doesn't actually perform it himself. So we have neither of the sufficient conditions.

That leaves answer (C).

Betsy overhears a contractor describing the benefit of changing the filter in a furnace. That may not be conclusive proof, but it is a form of evidence. Then she changes the filter in her daughter's house. Although we aren't told explicitly that she takes the action to benefit her daughter, we can reasonably infer that she does. So we have our two sufficient conditions. As a result, we're told, the furnace has never required maintenance—so Betsy is successful in her goal of keeping her daughter's furnace efficient.

Even though this isn't a 100% match—it would be nice to know explicitly Betsy's reason for changing the filter—it comes by far the closest to giving us our sufficient and necessary conditions.

Therefore, answer (C) is correct.

8. PT42, S4, Q8

When presented with the evidence against him, Ellison freely admitted to engaging in illegal transactions using company facilities. However, the company obtained the evidence by illegally recording Ellison's conversations. Therefore, although the company may demand that he immediately cease, it cannot justifiably take any punitive measures against him.

Which one of the following judgments best illustrates the principle illustrated by the argument above?

(A) After Price confessed to having stolen money from Long over a period of several years, Long began stealing from Price. Despite Price's guilt, Long was not justified in taking illegal action against him.

(B) Shakila's secretary has admitted that he is illegally receiving cable television without paying for it. Shakila would not be justified in reporting him, though, since she once did the same thing.

(C) After Takashi told Sarah's parents that he had seen her at the movies on Tuesday, Sarah confessed to sneaking out that day. On Monday, however, Takashi had violated the local curfew for minors. Hence Sarah's parents cannot justifiably punish her in this case.

(D) After a conservation officer discovered them, Kuttner admitted that he had set the illegal animal traps on his land. But, because she was trespassing at the time, the conservation officer cannot justifiably punish Kuttner in this case.

(E) Ramirez was forced by the discovery of new evidence to admit that she lied about her role in managing the chief of staff's financial affairs. Nevertheless, the board of directors cannot justifiably take action against Ramirez, because in past instances it has pardoned others guilty of similar improprieties.

Answer choice (D) is correct.

Here we have to generate a principle from the given argument, which concludes that the company cannot justifiably punish Ellison for his illegal activity. Why? Because although he confessed when presented with the evidence against him, that evidence was obtained illegally. So the argument core, and therefore our principle, looks like this:

evidence obtained illegally images illegal activity cannot justifiably be punished (even if confessed)

There are a couple of major assumptions there, but our job here is not to evaluate the argument, it's to find an example that most closely conforms to it. Let's look.

(A) has someone confessing to a crime, but doesn't tell us anything about where the evidence comes from, so it doesn't conform.

(B) concludes that Shakila can't report her secretary, but bases that conclusion not on her obtaining the evidence illegally, but on her having once done the same thing. This has nothing to do with our principle.

(C) is very tempting. The conclusion looks right: Sarah's parents can't justifiably punish her. And we have Sarah confessing to her misdeed after the evidence is presented. There's only one problem: although Takashi violated the curfew, that was on Monday, he saw Sarah on Tuesday. So his violation was not the source of the evidence against Sarah. Since we don't know whether the evidence was obtained illegally, we can't conclude whether Sarah's parents are justified in punishing her.

(E) is also tempting, but as in (B), the conclusion that punishment is unjustified is based on the wrong premise. We care about the source of the evidence, not about past pardons.

We're down to answer (D).

This core breaks down into:

officer trespassing at time of discovery of crime images can't justifiably punish Kuttner for illegal traps (even though he confessed)

That's a match! Because the evidence was obtained illegally, the admitted perpetrator cannot be punished justifiably.

So, answer (D) is correct.