Q23 - It is widely believed that

[WaltGrace1983]

This one had some good wrong answers.

We are given the following conditional:

Expectation that telling truth may result in physical/emotional harm to others
-->
Lying is morally correct

The right answer will have as many of these elements as possible.

(A) We don't care about losing the good; we care about avoiding the bad. Eliminate.

(B) "In order to avoid a discussion" does not match anything about physical/emotional harm. Eliminate.

(C) Close! This would have been right if the husband lied by making up a b.s. excuse ("but, honey, I have an appointment to buy a wild mongoose!"). However, the husband lied out of the truth's inconvenience, not to avoid distress regarding his chest pains. Eliminate.

(D) The mother lies ("I love you the same amount") but we aren't exactly sure why she lies. However, I think it is reasonably to assume that telling the truth here ("I love your sister more than you! Mwahaha!") would cause the young boy emotional distress. This is correct.

(E) Close! However, the emotional/physical distress would not be inflicted upon OTHERS by telling the truth; it will be inflicted upon HIMSELF. This is very close but not exactly in accordance with the principle stated.

[yscdennis]

Thanks for your post.

Another thought for (D), if in any case the truth is the mother love the boy more than his older sister, then tell the truth might not be a harm to this young boy. Then (D) might not conform the principle in stimulus in such case.

For the reason above, I incorrectly chose (C) and thought that the inconvenience might leads to the disappointment in the wife who has prepared for a long time, which constitute a mentally harm.

Thanks

[GodLovesUgly]

It doesn't appear that anyone either reads or posts here with any frequency anymore, but here it goes... This question is flat out wrong and to negate answer choice C demonstrates the egregious nature of this question and elements of this exam as a whole.

We are told that it is in fact morally correct to lie so as to protect others from physical or psychological pain (paraphrase).

C - We have a husband who lies to his wife about "feeling" ready to go on a canoe trip, despite recent chest pains, so as to prevent any "inconvenience" as a result of canceling a trip that his wife had planned a year prior. In order to eliminate this answer choice we are left to assume that "inconvenience" means nothing more than casual disruption when in reality it can and often does mean one of two things: 1) his wife being upset and hurt by not being able to go on a trip she had planned and was invariably looking forward to (Psychological) and 2) his wife being "out" the money it cost to plan the trip, book the hotels, rent the canoe, take time off of work, etc. (Physical)

D - We have a mother who lies to her "young" boy about loving both he and his sister to the same degree, even though this was not the case. That's it, that's all we are given.

In order accept D as a valid answer, we essentially have to do the same thing that would lead us to eliminating answer choice C and that is ASSUME/INFER, etc. If we have to assume that in D the little boy would be "emotionally" hurt if his mother told him that she in fact loves his sister more than she does him, how are we not able to do the same thing in answer choice C, which actually goes a step further than D by at least including a word like "inconvenience?" There are plenty of children who don't care what their parents think of them, so maybe the boy wouldn't have been upset at all, thus no psychological damage done, therefore D is not a valid answer choice. My point is that to eliminate C, we are forced to assume that "inconvenience" is nothing more than a casual emotion. In reality, if I plan and pay for a trip a year in advance only to have the person I was going with cancel at the last minute, I am both physically hurt (financially) and psychologically hurt (disappointed). This assumption I just mentioned is exactly what we HAVE to do to even make D a competitive answer choice.

If someone wants to weigh in, it would be greatly appreciated, because this is without a doubt one of the worst questions I have come across and the fact the test writers at the LSAC thought this was an acceptable question is laughable.

[tommywallach]

Hey GLU,

I'm sorry, but your interpretation of the question simply doesn't quite work. It's common for folks to hate on the LSAT when they don't like a question, but in reality, it's incredibly rare that LSAC writes a question that simply doesn't function (and when they do, we are the first to point it out).

When something inconveniences you, it is, by definition, causing you a small problem. You can't say "I was inconvenienced when my friend shot me," (unless you are being silly). The word inconvenience simply CANNOT support the definition "considerable physical or psychological harm." Equally logically, a mother telling her "young" son that she loves his sister more than him carries the "Reasonable expectation" of producing considerable psychological harm. Not necessarily, but reasonably.

-t

[Kayb898]

I have issues with your response as feel it’s dismissive, flawed, a bit disappointing disappointing and doesn’t effectively attack the point they’re making.

Not all inconveniences are on the same level or range. Some can be minor, some can be major as we use in our everyday vocabulary.
The literal definition of “inconvenience” is something causing trouble or difficulty. Causing trouble to others can cause them harm-that's something we can reasonably expect. You justify the meaning (of inconvenience) here to support your defense by adding “small.”
Also, LSAT teaches us about context and if we’re taking context into consideration, the inconvenience here doesn’t just mean small problem. It’s an oversimplification.
You also overlooked a crucial point here; am I to assume that chest pains are just chest pains or something that will hinder him from taking the trip. Their entire point is here is that the “correct” answer choice allows you to get away with assumptions that D penalizes you for.
An valid point was made about choice D which contributes to the flawed nature of this question. It seems you cherry-picked parts of what you assume you could rebut.

The frustration here for us students is that sometimes we genuinely want to realize what we're missing or overlooking instead of just an LSAC defense.