June 2007 LSAT Question Explanations June 2007 - Sec 2 - LR...

June 2007 - Sec 2 - LR - Q12

Video Transcript:

0:03
Question 12: Suppose I promise to keep a confidence and someone asks me a
0:12
question that I cannot answer truthfully without thereby breaking the promise. Obviously,
0:17
one cannot both keep and break the same promise. Therefore, one cannot be obliged
0:25
both to answer all questions truthfully and to keep all promises. So argument or facts? Clearly an
0:32
argument. Structural indicator of therefore introduces our conclusion that one
0:36
cannot be obligated both to answer all questions truthfully and to keep all
0:42
promices. And how do we know that? Well she gives us an example where these two
0:50
principles are incompatible. Where she's promised to keep a confidence and someone
0:56
asks the question that she can't answer truthfully without at the same time
1:02
breaking that promise. So therefore, one cannot be obliged both to answer all
1:09
questions truthfully and to keep all promises. So we see two incompatible
1:17
principles. First, the duty to keep all promises and second the duty to answer
1:29
all questions truthfully. So now that we have a clear understanding let's proceed
1:33
to the question stem. Which one of the following arguments is most similar in
1:38
its reasoning to the argument above. So we notice a parallel reasoning question. Again you notice what we saw
1:46
was the author telling us that these two principles were incompatible by showing
1:51
us a situation where you couldn't comply with both. So let's take a look here at
1:59
(A): It is claimed that we had the unencumbered right to say whatever we
2:03
want. It is also claimed that we have the obligation to be civil to others. But
2:10
civility requires that we not always say what we want.
2:15
So, it cannot be
2:17
true both that we have the unencumbered right to say whatever we want and that we have the
2:23
duty to be civil. So, definitely looks like it's on the right track there. What
2:29
is the conclusion? The conclusion is that it cannot be true both that we have the
2:34
unencumbered right to say whatever we want and that we have the duty to be
2:39
civil. So you notice we have two principals; one the unencumbered right to say
2:45
whatever we want and the duty to be civil. And how do we know that? Well, civility
2:57
requires that we not always say what we want. And you notice that is the exact
3:04
same structure of reasoning that we encounter in our passage so (A) would be the
3:13
correct answer. Again showing us that two things are incompatible. Right? By giving
3:22
us a scenario where you can't comply with both. In the passage it was this scenario where
3:29
you had promised to keep confidence and somebody asked you question where you can't
3:33
obviously answer the question truthfully and keep the promise if answering truthfully
3:39
requires that you break the promise. Whereas below we have these two duties; the unencumbered
3:47
right to say whatever, and the duty to be civil. But since the duty of civility
3:54
requires that we not always say what we want. Therefore, it cannot both be true that we
4:01
have been uncovered right to say whatever we want and that we have a duty to be
4:07
civil. And if you notice what's happening in (A) and in the passage is we have sufficient &
4:17
necessary conditions. In the passage it tells us that somebody asks a question
4:22
that I can't answer truthfully without thereby breaking the promise.
4:30
And again we know without introduces a necessary condition. So my necessary
4:37
condition here would be breaking the promise. Not keeping a promise. Not only does
4:46
'without' introduce a necessary condition the other part of the statment negated is our
4:51
sufficient condition 'so cannot answer truthfully' would become 'answer
4:55
truthfully'. And you notice to tell the truth I would have to break the promise. And you
5:01
notice the contrapositive. If you keep the promise not to break the confidence
5:05
then you can't tell the truth. The idea that telling the truth and keeping
5:16
the promise can't go together. Not both. they're mutually exclusive in this scenario.
5:27
In (A) you see the same thing. Civility requires. And 'requires' introduces a necessary
5:35
condition. So our necessary condition would be 'not always saying what we want'. So 'always
5:43
saying what we want' not doing that... The other part of the statement would be
5:52
our sufficient condition which is simple. The contrapositive... if we always say what we want then we can't have
6:02
civility. And again you notice the exact same idea that civility and always saying what you
6:13
want
6:14
can't go together. They're mutually exclusive. So (A) would be the correct answer. But again let's make
6:22
sure here... just quickly checking the other ones. (B) Some politicians could attain
6:26
popularity with voters only by making extravagant promises; this, however, would deceive
6:32
the people.
6:33
So, since the only way for some politicians to be popular is to deceive,
6:37
and any politician needs to be popular, it follows that some politicians must deceive.
6:43
Clearly not what we saw in the passage. We don't have two incompatible
6:49
principles. So (B) is out. (C) if we put a lot of effort into making this report
6:55
look good, the client might we did so because we believed
6:58
our proposal would not stand on its own merits. On the other hand, if we do not try to make the
7:04
report look good, the client might think we are not as serious about her business. So, whatever
7:08
we do, we risk criticism. Again we do not see two incompatible principles that no matter
7:14
what they risk criticism. But not the same form of reasoning that we saw in
7:21
our passage. (D) If creditors have legitimate claims against a business
7:27
and the business has the resources to pay those debts, then the business is
7:31
obliged to pay them. Also, if a business has obligations to pay debts, then a court will force it to
7:37
pay them. But the courts did not force this business to pay its debts, so either
7:42
the creditors did not have legitimate claims or the business did not have sufficient
7:47
resources. Again you notice clearly not the same structure as what we saw in the
7:56
passage of two incompatible principles. So (D) is out. And then lastly checking (E): If we
8:02
extend our business hours, we will either have to hire new employees or have existing
8:08
employees overtime.
8:10
But both new employees and additional overtime would dramatically increase our
8:14
labor costs. We cannot afford to increase labor costs, so we will have to keep our
8:19
business hours as they stand. Again, not the same structure as our passage. Again
8:26
we are looking for two incompatible principles. So (E) is out. (A) again had the two
8:33
incompatible principles that you can't both have the unencumbered right to say whatever
8:38
and the duty to be civil
8:41
because being civil requires that you not always say what you want. So, clearly you can
8:47
not have both of those things happen at the same time. They're incompatible. In
8:52
the passage we saw this idea of keeping all promises and answering all questions truthfully. And
8:58
somebody asked me a question that I can't answer truthfully without braking the promise. So,
9:04
those also would be incompatible.