Q7 - Terry: Months ago, I submitted

[tamwaiman]

I admit that (A) is the most approaching after checking the answer key, but choose (D) when testing, which is a irrelevant option.

In my humble opinion, the test maker should add something like "repeated" or "deliberate" into (A), such as, when the repeated actions of the corporation, or when the deliberate actions of the corporation. Otherwise I am not sure whether it is the first time.

I still want to know how precise (A) is; there might be a ignorance which is subtle.

Thank you.

[aileenann]

Hi Tamwaiman,

Thanks for your question. I am not quite sure what you are asking, but I think you want to know why (A) is a good answer. (If that is not your question, could you please rephrase so I know exactly what you want to know?)

I actually think (A) is a very good answer choice as it is written. Using a word like "repeated" would certainly make it more obvious, but it does match the situation. In particular, Terry is violating this rule because it does apply to the situation at hand - even if the actions are repeated, they are still actions. This rule might be slightly broader than we actually need, but it does fit our situation.

I hope this helps!

[mcrittell]

What does D mean, and how does it apply the principle?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

What does D mean, and how does it apply the principle?

Why do you feel that answer choice (D) must apply the principle. We're looking for the answer choice that violates the principle, but that doesn't mean that statements irrelevant to the principle would also be correct.

Answer choice (D) simply means that there's a difference between between the way you would judge the morality of a corporation's behavior from the way you would judge an individual's behavior - for corporations mitigating circumstances (ie; good intentions, lesser of two evil choices, etc.) are irrelevant.

Make sense?

[joseph.m.kirby]

To interpret (A) as the correct answer, I feel that we would have to use the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard (perhaps, more or less, basic LSAT logic).

We can't prove 100% that the corporation was acting dishonestly (even though it would seem that way); so, even though Terry has avoided attributing dishonesty to some degree, in the end, Terry violated the principle mentioned in (A). Terry can't prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the corporation was acting out of dishonesty.

I feel (D) is a classic LSAT answer that just detracts time by bringing up an irrelevant, yet complexly enticing, contrast of information. This answer choice posits: mitigating circumstances are irrelevant in the judging of the morality of a corporation's behavior; however, in the case of an individual, mitigating circumstance might be or are relevant.

So, by this principle, in judging the morality of Terry's behavior, mitigating circumstances might be or are relevant (circumstances that make the situation less severe). In judging the morality of the corporation's behavior, mitigating circumstances are irrelevant (the corporation's behavior in making the situation less severe).

I feel that this answer isn't closely relevant, while (A) is more attractive. Thus, (A) FTW!

[cvfh17]

can somebody explain me what the question is asking for ??? thank you !!! :sss

[asafezrati]

can somebody explain me what the question is asking for ??? thank you !!! :sss

The question asks for a principle that Terry (the speaker) violates. You are looking for something that the reasoning is inconsistent with.

Stimulus reasoning: because the company has erred on numerous occasions, I conclude that it is not an error but a deliberate attempt to avoid payment.

Answer choices:

A. The principle says that if the actions of the company can be explained by them being incompetent, the consumer should avoid attributing dishonesty. This is INCONSISTENT with Terry's reasoning, and therefore the correct answer.

B. Terry kept himself informed of the behavior. There isn't any evidence he didn't. The argument is CONSISTENT with this principle.

C. Says that he should have relied mainly on his experience with the company. CONSISTENT.

D. Mitigating circumstances and behavior of an individual are not mentioned, and therefore - CONSISTENT.

E. This principle refers to the company, and not the consumer (Terry). The actions of both parties are CONSISTENT with this principle.

[wxpttbh]

I just cannot understand "dishonesty"...

[ohthatpatrick]

You're saying you don't see how "deliberately trying to screw me out of money" = dishonesty?

You're probably thinking too much of "dishonest" in the sense of "told a lie". When you're referring to "dishonest business practices", it can mean lying, cheating, stealing, or otherwise fraudulent practices.