#20 - Many workers who handled substance T in factories

[Jeff Wren]

Hi romankd,

The wording of this answer can be a bit tricky to diagram.

The word "if" indicates the sufficient condition. Here, "if" is modifying "preventable," so "preventable" is a sufficient condition. "Any" is also a sufficient indicator and "actions that harm innocent people" would also be a sufficient condition. "Should be held responsible" is the necessary condition.

While the indicator words can be helpful, it's also a good idea to step back and just try to analyze what the sentence is trying to convey. This answer is explaining when (under what situations) a manufacturer should be held responsible. That is another way of expressing what is sufficient to draw that conclusion/judgement.

It may also be helpful to reword Answer E to better capture what it is essentially saying,

"If any actions of manufacturers harm innocent people and the consequences of those actions were preventable, then the manufacturers should be held responsible for those consequences."

This does correctly match the order of the premises and conclusion in the argument.

[lsatstudent99966]

Complete Question Explanation

Answer choice (B): There are two problems with this answer. First, it does not mention the element of “harm,” even though the author clearly holds the manufacturer of substance T responsible for the harmful consequences of handling substance T (not just for any preventable consequences). Second, and perhaps most importantly, this answer choice is the Mistaken Reversal of the principle we are looking for:

• S N
  
  Responsible Preventable

Our objective is not to limit responsibility only to the preventable consequences of a particular action, but to ensure that, if such consequences are preventable (and harmful), the manufacturer is held responsible for them.

Hi there,

I think (B) is probably only wrong because of the second reason OP explains?

I think the first reason in OP's explanation probably won't make (B) wrong, because the fact that (B) doesn't mention the element of harm would only make (B)'s application broader than necessary, it won't undermine (B)'s ability to fill in the gap of the argument in the stimulus?

My understanding is that in these types of questions, it is totally OK to choose an answer that gives us more than we need (as long as it fills in the gap)?

So if (B) says: "Manufacturers should be responsible for the preventable consequences of their actions." That would probably make (B) the correct answer, right?

Thanks in advance!

[Jeff Wren]

Hi lsatstudent,

I agree with your analysis.

Adam's earlier post on the prior page also addresses this issue.

[lsatstudent99966]

Hi lsatstudent,

I agree with your analysis.

Adam's earlier post on the prior page also addresses this issue.

Thank you, Jeff! I'm so sorry... I just saw Adam's post. His explanation of this issue and the process of dealing with situations like this in different question types is already very clear.