Q22 - Counselor: To be kind to someone, one must want

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Inference (Must be False)

Stimulus Breakdown:
Read for a Conditional or Possible Inference that could be contradicted.
Being kind -> want 2 prosper.
Dislike -> can't be fully content.
Don't dislike -> Being kind

Answer Anticipation:
There are some conditionals that could chain together to give us a possible inference:
Can be fully content -> Don't dislike -> be kind -> want each other to prosper.
There is another conditional and another fact, so the correct answer could contradict the fact, the lonely conditional, or the conditional chain. But smart money would be on it contradicting the conditional chain.

Correct Answer:
B

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) This doesn't contradict anything. We were never told that "everyone who likes each other are fully content in each other's presence".

(B) YES, this contradicts our chain. If you're fully content, you don't dislike, so you'll be kind, so you must want the other person to prosper.

(C) This doesn't contradict, because we didn't hear that "Everyone who treats each other with respect is fully content".

(D) This would contradict the idea that "Everyone who wants each other to prosper likes each other", but we never heard that.

(E) This doesn't contradict anything. We were never told that "Everyone who is kind to each other will treat each other with respect".

Takeaway/Pattern: Must Be False inference questions are rare, but the correct answer usually contradicts a conditional or some available inference. Like anywhere on LSAT, if we see multiple conditional rules, we have to ask ourselves whether we could chain them together or apply them to any relevant facts.

#officialexplanation