Q21 - If one has evidence that

[Rachel.Jay.Shapiro]

I'm having trouble understanding why answer choice C is a better choice than answer choice D. I was deciding between these two and, while they both seem to exemplify the principle described in the question, I opted for D because the beneficial act illustrated in C struck me as less directly beneficial than the act illustrated in D. Is the issue that helping someone overcome an addiction may not in fact be beneficial to them, whereas the furnace's proper functioning clearly eliminates the need for maintenance (and thus is beneficial to the owner in certain ways, i.e. financially)? To me is seems that answer choice C requires more explanation.. Please explain. Thanks!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

The principle states that

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.

In order to conform to the principle the evidence in the answer choice should match the "IF" part and the conclusion should match the "THEN" part. It's possible that the answer choice would match the contrapositive of the principle. In which case, the evidence in the answer choice would match the negation of the "THEN" part and the conclusion would match the negation of the "IF" part.

The issue with answer choice (D) is that there is no correspondence between the conclusion and the necessary condition of the the stimulus. The stimulus says that "one will generally succeed in benefiting them." Answer choice (D) doesn't say that Sejal succeeded, whereas, answer choice (C) says that Betsy was successful in not having the furnace require maintenance.

(A) doesn't mention benefiting someone else, and as a result does not conform to the principle.
(B) goes against the principle when it says that the government was not successful.
(C) is correct. Betsy had evidence that her act would benefit, performed the act to benefit someone else, and as a result was successful.
(D) fails to mention that Sejal was successful.
(E) does not match the principle. Having hope is different than having evidence that Zachary's parents would overcome their problems.

[gjhayward]

But it never says that Betsy had any intent to benefit her daughter? Why are we to infer this, if not stated in the Answer (C)?

Thank you so much!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

In the second sentence we are told that Betsy regularly changed the furnace filter in her daughter's house in order to help keep the furnace efficient. The word "so" at the beginning of the second sentence implies intent.

Let me know if you still see it differently though...

[gjhayward]

I guess (C) would be best, but I still think this is a poor question.

We are instructed to look for acts which are done to benefit another. Thinking critically, I asked myself what if the mother lives with the daughter and is keeping the furnace efficient for her own benefit. I thought this type of knit-picking is needed on the LSAT. I thus believed the credited response would have made the requisite goodwill element clearer. As in: "....to assist her daughter, Betsy..." I feel like this response could almost be an assumption question, because in (C) we assume, though not explicitly stated, that the mother is changing the filter to benefit her daughter.

Nevertheless, I guess this is the "best" response of those given.

[gjhayward]

Thank you so much, mshermn!

I had meant to type that above.

[jlz1202]

thanks for the explanation, i see why A, B, D, E obviously flawed and C matches the element in the stimulus, but I am confused: does "overheard" count as "evidence"?

thanx very much!^^

[syousif3]

Can you please explain why B is wrong?

[jimmy902o]

(A) doesn't mention benefiting someone else, and as a result does not conform to the principle.

not sure if this is right, but doesnt avoiding a confrontation constitute benefiting others i.e. the people who would have fought in the war?

[timmydoeslsat]

(A) doesn't mention benefiting someone else, and as a result does not conform to the principle.

not sure if this is right, but doesnt avoiding a confrontation constitute benefiting others i.e. the people who would have fought in the war?

Notice the test writers tell us "because those leaders worried that war would harm their changes of being elected..."

So we know the cause of the leaders taking the action was not to benefit others. The cause was the selfish worry of being reelected.

[jimmy902o]

oooooh ok got it. thanks for the help

[shirando21]

hearsay could be trusted as evidence? not a very powerful one, I guess. But still better than "hoped" in E.

[soyeonjeon]

Why would A be incorrect?

I saw it as follows:
Evidence: realization that fostering diplomatic ties with antagonistic nations...

Perform: they engaged in diplomatic discussions

Benefit: the two countries avoided a confrontation

Why would C be a better AC than A?

Would it be because realization is less likely suffice as an evidence? that a heating contractor's knowledge would be closer to an evidence?

Thanks.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Why would A be incorrect?

Answer choice fails to meet the trigger of the principle outlined in the stimulus. The action must be taken in order to benefit others. In answer choice (A) the leaders were concerned about their own reelection chances. The leaders did not undertake the action to benefit others, instead it was undertaken to benefit themselves.

[xw73]

Can I understand (E) like the following?

Even though having a hope is not evidence, I see (E)'s problem mainly lies in the fact that Zachary is not the one that performs the psychotherapy.

IF (E) is worded like: "Zachary hoped that persuading his parents to call a pyschotherapist will help them overcome their marital difficulties, ..." THEN I would agree that the main problem lies in the difference between a hope and evidence.

Can anyone help? Thanks!

[rinagoldfield]

Hi xw,

Can I understand (E) like the following?

Even though having a hope is not evidence, I see (E)'s problem mainly lies in the fact that Zachary is not the one that performs the psychotherapy.

IF (E) is worded like: "Zachary hoped that persuading his parents to call a pyschotherapist will help them overcome their marital difficulties, ..." THEN I would agree that the main problem lies in the difference between a hope and evidence.

Can anyone help? Thanks!

You point out an important issue with (E), but that issue doesn’t negate all other issues. This answer choice has the problem you point out AND an absence of evidence!

Zachary lacks evidence that marital counseling helps a marriage AND "marital counseling" and "persuading someone to go to marital counseling" are not identical.

Remember, answer choices needn’t be wrong in only one way. Great eye noticing another flaw.

[lsat2016]

How does the word “generally” work in the context of the LSAT? Is it like the word “some”, which means more than one is possible?
I thought that answer choice C was too strong since it said “the furnace has NEVER required maintenance” while the stimulus said that “one will GENERALLY succeed”.

[tommywallach]

Generally means the same as "most" (i.e. more than 50% of the time). That's the best you could say for it logically.

-t

[WesleyC316]

Since when has "overhearing" become an evidence? Actually, none of the five answer choices appeal to me because I don't see evidence in anyone of them. Well, if I ever become a lawyer and argue on court that I overheard something as an evidence, I hope the judge, jury and the opposing lawyer won't laugh at me cause clearly that's how LSAC defines "evidence".

[snoopy]

Since when has "overhearing" become an evidence? Actually, none of the five answer choices appeal to me because I don't see evidence in anyone of them. Well, if I ever become a lawyer and argue on court that I overheard something as an evidence, I hope the judge, jury and the opposing lawyer won't laugh at me cause clearly that's how LSAC defines "evidence".

Actually, in the United States, hearsay is sometimes admissible as evidence in court. So, your chances of being laughed at is lowered.