#24 - Lawyer: The defendant wanted to clear the snow

[8scn]

Hello, what is the thought process behind choosing B as the correct answer? I chose E because it was most similiar to my abstraction of the stimulus, which was: D intentionally did something (remove snow) that he didn’t know would later cause something else (harm to plaintiff) to happen. So he made that something else happen.

[Adam Tyson]

In this question, the key is to focus on the conclusion, which is not that the defendant CAUSED harm, but rather that the defendant INTENDED to cause harm (not just harmed, but maliciously harmed). An answer like E, which focuses on what happened, must be wrong, because we are looking for an answer that talks about what someone WANTED to happen. That's why B is the better answer.

Another way to look at it is that what the stimulus seeks to prove is not purely factual - it's subject to some debate. An answer like E is not subject to debate - it's purely factual (he did in fact sell a stolen car). That's another way we can analyze some questions in the Must Be True family, as this Parallel Flaw question is.

Hope that helps!

Adam Tyson
PowerScore LSAT Instructor

[Jkjones3789]

Hello, Yeah I chose the wrong answer for this parallel flaw question. I kept B, D, and E as contenders and eliminated B since it seemed to not involve two people. However it was B, I believe I chose randomly between D and E. Please can you explain to me the Flaw occurring in this question and why the answer is B? Thank You

[Steve Stein]

Hi JK,

That's a good question: the flawed argument presented here is this: The defendant intentionally removed snow from his car, so he intentionally harmed the plaintiff as a result.

The flaw: the defendant intended to remove snow from his car; he didn't know that this would harm the plaintiff--so his intent was not actually to harm the plaintiff.

Similarly, Bruce intended to eat mincemeat pie; he didn't know that it was poison--so his intent was not actually to eat poison.

I hope that's helpful! Please let me know whether this is clear--thanks!

~Steve

[OneSeventy2019]

Can you further elaborate on why answer choice (C) is incorrect? I had originally chosen (B) but second-guessed myself into switching to (C) at the last moment. My pre-prhase did indeed deal with "someone does something, something is affected, therefore the someone must have intended the effect".

Is choice (C) incorrect because the response says, "Cheryl indirectly denigrates her sister" which does not align to the level of certainty in the stimulus (and choice (B)) that the plaintiff intended to cause harm (and Bruce wanted to eat poison)?

Thanks in advance!

[Claire Horan]

Hi OneSeventy2019,

Thanks for the question. Just a forum tip: I recommend explaining why you chose a particular incorrect answer because if I guess why the incorrect answer appealed to you, I could be wrong and confuse you more.

Fortunately, you shared your pre-phrase, so I'll start there: "someone does something, something is affected, therefore the someone must have intended the effect".

It's pretty good, though I would change it to include that the action itself was done intentionally. So, in your words, it is now:

"someone does something intentionally, something is affected, therefore the someone must have intended the effect"

Now we can compare it to C:
(1) Cheryl denigrates the wine = "someone does something"? Yep, so far, so good.
(2) Her sister picked the wine = "something is affected"? Eh, sure, if Cheryl's sister heard the criticism.
(3) Cheryl indirectly denigrated sister = "intended the effect"? Nope! That doesn't match.

Answer choice C says nothing about her intending to do it. In fact, the fact that she "may not have realized it" suggests she DID NOT intend to denigrate her sister! So, that doesn't match up.

Remember, if your prephrase turns out to be too general, make it more specific and then take another go at the answer choices.

Good luck!