- Mon May 20, 2019 5:20 pm
#64886
The key to get you out of this pickle, tizwvu34, is in the question stem: "Which one of the following most reasonably completes the argument above?" (emphasis added)
Do the two groups ever have to interact? No, perhaps not. But is it reasonable to believe that at least sometimes, some members of the first group will interact in some way with members of the second group? Absolutely - there is nothing unreasonable about that statement, and it makes perfect sense to believe that it is probably going to happen at some point. And if they are going to interact, the members of the first group will withhold information that the members of the second group would prefer to be told.
More importantly, is there another answer that is more reasonable than this one? Not at all. The closest second-place answer, for me, is answer A, and that one is still pretty terrible. What reason do we have to believe that the members of the first group would EVER be willing to speak up? Folks who dislike confrontation and unpleasantness might never choose to say something that could lead to those very things. In fact, that is exactly what we would probably expect from people who feel that way!
This language is not unlike a question stem that asks which of the following is most strongly supported by the stimulus, and like those questions (a subset of Must Be True) we can apply a slightly lower standard of proof. The answer must be a reasonable inference based on the facts presented, with no extra outside help, but it need not be absolutely provable. I hope that distinction helps you get more comfortable with the answer here, and with other questions like this one!
Adam M. Tyson
PowerScore LSAT, GRE, ACT and SAT Instructor
Follow me on Twitter at
https://twitter.com/LSATadam