Q18 - Sanderson intentionally did not tell his cousin

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Necessary Assumption

Stimulus Breakdown:
Sanderson held back some information knowing that the omission would lead his cousin to believe a factory would say open. Since he intended to not tell someone, that's the same as telling a lie (a statement intended to mislead), and lying is morally wrong. So Sanderson's silence was morally wrong.

Answer Anticipation:
It's so easy to get wrapped up in the verbiage here, but let's get it down to the basics. The conclusion is that Sanderson did something wrong. What did he do? He held some information back from his cousin.

Since this is an Assumption question, there's definitely a gap in the argument. When I hit a question like this and get lost in the language, I fall back on that - there is a gap here.

Alright, so the gap is between what Sanderson did, and the conclusion. Why does the author think S did something wrong? Because lying is wrong, whether it be a regular lie or a lie of omission. Okay, great - did Sanderson lie?

Here's where the gap is! Sanderson withheld information from his cousin, but in order for that to be a lie, S must have believed it (there's no intent to deceive if you don't say something you don't believe). Tricky, LSAT!

I'll hit this again in the takeaway, but we should have been primed for this flaw from the get-go since it talks about what someone "overheard" - any time the LSAT mentions something that is said, there's a good chance the answer is going to turn on that being a lie or not being believed.

Correct answer:
(C)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Out of scope. The argument doesn't establish a "willful ignorance" exception to ethics.

(B) Out of scope. The argument is about S's actions, so it doesn't matter what others did.

(C) Bingo. If S didn't believe what he overheard, what he did wasn't wrong (since there was no intent to mislead).

(D) Since the argument establishes a lie of omission as being the same as a stated lie, this answer isn't relevant.

(E) Out of scope. The definition of "lie" used in the argument is an intent to mislead; there doesn't have to be an intent to profit from it for that to apply. Maybe S is a pathological liar.

Takeaway/Pattern:
When the LSAT mentions what someone said/heard, there's always a chance it's a lie. Make sure the LSAT establishes the truth or whether those who heard the statement believe it before assuming it's true!

#officialexplanation