#21 - If one has evidence that an act will benefit other

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Must Be True—PR, SN. The correct answer choice is (C)

This author presents a simple, one-sentence conditional rule:

• Evidence of act’s prospective benefit to others
  + generally succeed in providing benefit
  Performs act to benefit others

We are asked to find the answer choice which illustrates this principle, so we should see a scenario that involves foreseeable benefit, intent to benefit others, and success in providing such benefit.

Answer choice (A): This answer choice provides no indication of any intent to benefit others, so although there is success in avoiding a confrontation, this choice does not illustrate the conditional rule (or principle) presented in the stimulus.

Answer choice (B): This choice has the first two components of the stimulus’ conditional rule (evidence of benefit and performance of act to benefit others), but because the plan was not a success, this answer fails to illustrate the rule from the stimulus.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. In this scenario, Betsy has evidence of benefit (overhearing the contractor), and seeks to benefit her daughter by changing the filters. The resulting success is the avoidance of the need for maintenance.

Answer choice (D): This incorrect answer choice has two of the three components of the conditional rule presented in the stimulus. Here, Sejal has the evidence (from psychology class) and the intent to help Bob. However, since we don’t learn of any success, this choice fails to provide an illustration of the conditional rule from the stimulus.

Answer choice (E): Like other incorrect answer choices above, this choice has two out of three components needed to reflect the principle from the stimulus. In this scenario we have the intent to benefit, along with a successful outcome. Zachary’s actions, however, were based on hope rather than evidence, so this answer choice cannot be correct.

[TonySteep]

Besides being the answer that "best illustrates" the principle, can this answer choice stand on its own? I don't understand how Betsy changing the filter at her daughter's house automatically implies she is doing it for her daughters benefit...

[Gilmojt]

Can we rehash this point? I cannot understand how the second condition, worded in the stimulus as "performs act to benefit them" can be interpreted simply as the "performance of said act".

Obviously a crucial distinction, because without it no answer suffices. Thanks!

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Gil,

While I see the point James is making above, I'm going to go back in and delete it because I think intent does play a role here. I get his reading of it (he emphasized performs that act which just happens to benefit them), but my reading is different (and I think my reading conforms not just to how most people read this, but to LSAC's intent as well). So, for what it's worth, you'll see a removal of his answer in the next day or so.

That said, while I think this answer choice could be written more clearly, it is the best of the bunch. And on that account, LSAC would say it is the answer that "best illustrates" the proposition. They'd likely fall back on the idea that Betsy changing the filter regularly in her daughter's house isn't something one would just do without some sort of intent. Like, who goes over to someone's house and just changes the filter? So, the fact that it is her daughter, and she knows it's a benefit, would suggest to them that there is intent in her actions, and that it is a commonsense judgment at that point to draw that conclusion. Is it a perfect answer? No, I don't think so, but to not select this answer you then have to find a better answer, and nothing else here is as good.

Hopefully that helps clear this up (at least far as it can be cleared up). Thanks!

[KG!]

Thanks for all the explanations so far, but can someone explain how we can reasonably assume in C that her changing the filter at her daughters house meets the "performs the act to benefit them," but we can't reasonably assume in D that the confrontation was successful?

thanks in advance!

[Robert Carroll]

KG!,

The wild implausibility of Betsy changing the furnace filter in someone else's house with some other intent than to benefit them (unless explicitly mentioned otherwise) means it's common sense that answer choice (C) meets the "performs the act to benefit them" part of the principle. It's not common sense at all that confronting someone about a chemical dependency will get them to stop - otherwise every intervention would be universally successful. That's not close to true.

Robert Carroll