October 2010 LSAT Section 3 Question 2

Since there is no survival value in an animal's having an organ that is able to function when all its other organs ha...

WHEELZ622 on March 23, 2020

Question 4, Marks Accident

I am a bit lost about the main conclusion and answer for number 4. Even though the premise states that Mark was not in an accident, the answer still admits the main conclusion that he was. Does the main conclusion rely on the face value of what it is addressing, or does it want to add deductive reasoning that Mark was late because he didn't want to go? Making up a lie that he was in an accident?

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

shunhe on March 24, 2020

Hi @WHEELZ622,

Thanks for the question! So the premise does state that Mark wasnâ€™t in an accident, but the answer doesnâ€™t admit the main conclusion that he was. Answer choice (D) tells us that Mark was wrong in telling his mother that he had missed her birthday party because he was in a traffic accident. It doesnâ€™t say anything about whether or not Mark actually was in a traffic accident, only that it was wrong of him to tell his mother that he had missed her party because he had been in one. The main conclusion relies on the reasoning later on in the passage that Mark had just forgotten about the party, which is the premise thatâ€™s talked about in the video. So the answer choice doesnâ€™t contradict the passage, if thatâ€™s the worry here. Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.