June 2001 LSAT Section 3 Question 16

Ethicist: In a recent judicial decision, a contractor was ordered to make restitution to a company because of a bu...

yassmenaraim on January 3, 2021

Answer choice

Why is the answer choice E? I was debating between A & E and thought A was more appropriate because it said: "Agreement" and E used "promise" and the two aren't necessarily interchangeable? I'm quite confused. Can someone explain, please?

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

Already have an account? log in

shunhe on January 4, 2021

Hi @yassmenaraim,

Thanks for the question! Well, remember that we’re looking for a principle that helps to justify the reasoning here. So this is basically a strengthen with sufficient premise, and the sufficient premise will be a principle. First of all, what’s the conclusion here? It’s that it’s morally wrong for the company to change its mind and seek restitution.

(A) can be diagrammed

Morally wrong to not abide by agreement —> Other party abides

But here, we have morally wrong in the sufficient, but we want it in the necessary (so we can conclude it). So this isn’t the correct answer.

(E), on the other hand, says that

Context of promise to forgo compensation —> Morally wrong to seek compensation

And that’s what we want, and so is the correct answer.

Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.