Q3 - Having lived through extraordinary childhood

[debbie.d.park]

This seemed to be a relatively easy question at first sight, but I couldn't grasp the gist of the correct answer choice.

Why is B correct, and how do we know for sure the offense Robin committed was indeed morally wrong? All we know is that the offense was illegal, and nothing is known about its morality. So it is still possible that the offense was not morally wrong, while Robin was unable to make a valid moral judgment. Am I missing something in here?

To me, C looked like a better answer, because even if Robin didn't recognize that his offense was morally wrong, it was still illegal showing that moral ignorance is legally not excusable.

Can you offer an explanation? Thanks a lot!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

For an inference question, we're looking for the answer that is most provable, and we are, in fact, told specifically that the act was morally wrong --

Notice how strongly this is worded:

"When Robin committed an offense, Robin did not recognize the fact that it was a morally wrong act."

We can see that Robin did, with certainty, do something, and that something was, in fact, morally wrong. That's what makes (B) correct.

Excusable in the eyes of the law is irrelevant. Excusable or not is neither discussed nor hinted at.

BTW -- I have a note by this problem, one that I probably wrote years ago in the middle of the night at some point, that says "Easy but hard!" so I know exactly what you mean about this seeming like both.

[rbetita]

Hey I know this thread is two years old, but I printed out the explanation and noticed a possible typo:

We can see that Robin did, with certainty, do something, and that something was, in fact, morally wrong. That's what makes (C) correct.

The answer is still B, correct? Not C?

Thanks!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

absolutely - thanks for catching that -- i edited my original thread

[nlynes]

What about answer choice D? I know that B is correct but what exactly is wrong with D? Is it that we dont know whether or not Robin's childhood could have been any better?

[demetri.blaisdell]

I think you're exactly right, nlynes. They don't even tell us what the circumstances are. We're told they were extraordinary. How could we know if Robin's upbringing could have been better?

(D) is the sort of inference (or opinion, really) that might be valid in everyday conversation. But on the LSAT, we look for those really boring, 100%-provable inferences. There's no way we can prove (D).

I hope this helps. Let me know if you have any more questions.

Demetri

[erick.traschikoff]

Can someone let me know why A) in incorrect. During my PT the wording confused me and sucked about 1 minute of my time. Is this some sort of double negative.

[foralexpark]

Can someone let me know why A) in incorrect. During my PT the wording confused me and sucked about 1 minute of my time. Is this some sort of double negative.

yes it's one of those double negative trick

A) says that..
Robin committed no offense that was not legally permissible

no offense that was not legally permissible
no offense that was illegal
offense -> -illegal
offense -> legal

which is directly opposite of what the stimulus says:
"despite knowing that it was illegal"

[foralexpark]

Can someone let me know why A) in incorrect. During my PT the wording confused me and sucked about 1 minute of my time. Is this some sort of double negative.

yes it's one of those double negative trick

A) says that..
Robin committed no offense that was not legally permissible

no offense that was not legally permissible
no offense that was illegal
offense -> -illegal
offense -> legal

which is directly opposite of what the stimulus says:
"despite knowing that it was illegal"