Q20 - Many workers who handled substance T

[fruityfatty]

The question is asking for a principle that most justifies, i.e. a principle that is closest to being a sufficient assumption. I'm not sure I see how E is any better than B. I understand that B is narrower (manufacturers should be held responsible ONLY for preventable consequences), but that is enough to allow one to conclude that the manufacturers in the stimulus are not absolved of all responsibility given that some of the consequences were preventable. I ruled out E because it introduces "innocent people," which is a qualification that i did not think was appropriate to make about the workers.

Help, please? Taking the test on Monday!

[fruityfatty]

No thoughts at all...?

[funner567]

I completely understand where you're coming from on this question, i too was deciding between these two answer choices. I marked off (B) because, as you stated, it was too narrow. ONLY simply is too narrow of an answer to choice.

Also think of it this way when looking at (E)...it seems like we are to assume that workers are innocent people. But are they not truly innocent people? No where in the stimulus does it state that they "mishandled" or "wrongfully used" substance T, they were just doing their jobs and due to the negligence of the company they were exposed to the illness caused by T. So in a sense they are innocent people, yet they are innocent people who happen to be factory workers.

Just trying to make sense of it...hope it helps =]

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Thanks funner567 for pointing out the issue with answer choice (B)! The word only is too limiting, exactly. Let's look at from the more general approach to principle questions using an understanding of conditional logic to guide us.

Suppose you see an argument that says "A, therefore B."

A
----
B

A principle you could use to justify that argument would say "if A, then B."

A ---> B

An answer choice that reverses the logic though would be one of those tempting but incorrect answers.

When you seek a principle that will justify an argument, make sure the evidence matches with the sufficient condition of the principle and the conclusion with the necessary.

Answer choice (B) puts being held morally responsible as the trigger (sufficient condition), whereas we need a principle that puts it as the outcome (necessary condition). We can identify which term is sufficient and which is necessary with the word "only" in this answer choice. Only introduces a necessary condition, which according to this principle are the preventable consequences of an action.

Answer choice (E) however puts being held morally responsible as the outcome and so could be used to justify the conclusion. The word "any" introduces a sufficient condition which would be the preventable consequences of an action, making the moral responsibility held by the company to be the outcome (necessary condition).

(A) leads to the wrong outcome. Compensation is not the same as applying moral responsibility.
(B) has the logic reversed.
(C) does not suggest any moral responsibility that the company might have.
(D) goes against the argument, rather than supports the argument.

Hope that helps, and let me know if you have further questions on this one!

[timmydoeslsat]

That is a great explanation mshermn.

I wanted to add this for others who may wonder about this one.

The stimulus needs a principle to help justify its reasoning. It talks about how T's manufacturer did not investigate the safety of substance T and that some workers became ill because of substance T. Had T been investigated, many of the illnesses would have been avoided.

The conclusion of this argument is that T is not blameless in this situation because of ignorance.

The critic in you needs to be asking, "Why isn't this company blameless?" Are they assuming that if you could have been prevented something and did not prevent it, then you have at least some blame? That was my pre-phrase. It turned out to be pretty close.

I will go over what appears to be the most tempting incorrect answer choice of B. Remember that we want a principle that can help tell us why this manufacturer should have some blame.

B) Manufacturers should be held responsible only for the preventable consequences of their actions.

Should be held responsible ---> There were preventable consequences of their actions

Notice what the sufficient condition is.

This is saying "When we have a case of something being held responsible." We do not know if we have that situation in this case! We are wanting something to lead us to that responsibility! We cannot determine if we have this sufficient condition.

Answer choice E gives us a sufficient condition we know we have, which is consequences preventable. Do we know whether we have a case of consequences that were preventable? Yes! And this principle allows us to then conclude from that the idea of the manufacturer being responsible.

[mswang7]

Can someone speak to why we're allowed to make the leap that the workers are innocent?

[Laura Damone]

The blanket categorization of workers as " innocent people" is common enough in the law that we're allowed to assume it here. There's no talk of guilt or innocence of particular crimes in this stimulus, so there isn't any reason to believe that the workers are not innocent people. The same would be true if a question talked about "innocent bystanders." We can assume that anyone standing by is innocent, unless we're given reason to believe otherwise.

Innocent until proven guilty, am I right?