Discussion
Which one of the following, if true, justifies the above
application of the principle?
*This question is included in Complete Section: LR-B, June '10 LSAT (PT 60 Sec. 3), question #20
| (A) | Jarrett knew that the defects in the essay were so obvious that pointing them out would benefit no one. |
| (B) | ... |
| (C) | ... |
| (D) | ... |
| (E) | ... |
| (F) | ... |
The solution is
Posted: 12/27/2012 16:42
Why is Choice A the correct answer?
Posted: 12/30/2012 15:21
Hi, Tyrone -
The principle states that a person's actions or work should be criticized only if both of the following two conditions hold: the criticism will not seriously harm the person criticized, and the person doing the criticizing hopes or expects that the criticism will be of benefit to someone other than him- or herself.
Thus the application is justified only if it establishes either (1) that Ostertag was seriously harmed by the criticism, or (2) that Jarrett had no hope or expectation of benefiting others by his criticism.
None of the answers implies serious harm to Ostertag; the only one that even suggests a negative effect on Ostertag is (C), which is not correct because antagonism is not serious harm. Thus we cannot establish (1); we therefore need an answer that establishes (2); i.e., an answer that implies that Jarrett did not expect anyone else to benefit from his criticism.
The only answer that meets this criterion is (A): if Jarrett knew that the defects were obvious and that his criticism would therefore benefit nobody, then he cannot have hoped or expected to benefit anyone by his criticism.
Please feel free to post again if you have further questions!
Best,
Lyn
The principle states that a person's actions or work should be criticized only if both of the following two conditions hold: the criticism will not seriously harm the person criticized, and the person doing the criticizing hopes or expects that the criticism will be of benefit to someone other than him- or herself.
Thus the application is justified only if it establishes either (1) that Ostertag was seriously harmed by the criticism, or (2) that Jarrett had no hope or expectation of benefiting others by his criticism.
None of the answers implies serious harm to Ostertag; the only one that even suggests a negative effect on Ostertag is (C), which is not correct because antagonism is not serious harm. Thus we cannot establish (1); we therefore need an answer that establishes (2); i.e., an answer that implies that Jarrett did not expect anyone else to benefit from his criticism.
The only answer that meets this criterion is (A): if Jarrett knew that the defects were obvious and that his criticism would therefore benefit nobody, then he cannot have hoped or expected to benefit anyone by his criticism.
Please feel free to post again if you have further questions!
Best,
Lyn