December 2017 LSAT Section 2 Question 20
on July 3, 2018In addition there is no consequence mentioned for violators in contrast to passage A, eliminating any incentive, which would eliminate the thought to which Chef's would be hesitant in protecting information.
Christopher on July 6, 2018@mws7129, the argument in passage B is essentially that since there are no viable legal ways of preventing or punishing recipe theft, chefs depend on "three implicit social norms" to govern themselves. The question is asking which of the answer choices "if true" would best support this argument. So the correct answer does not need to have been mentioned in the passage but only lend support to the conclusion of the argument. Since the argument is that Chefs are governed by a series of social norms, having evidence that chefs punish violators by refusing to share information would fit within the argument as a premise in support of the main conclusion.