PrincipleDiff: Easy

Logic Breakdown

Passage Summary: A manager blames a contractor for a late opening, but an arbitrator says the manager is also at fault because he knew the contractor was usually late and didn't plan for it.

Conclusion: The shipping manager shares responsibility for the lost business resulting from the facility's delayed opening.

Reasoning: The manager was aware of the contractor's history of delays and should have accounted for that possibility when scheduling the transition.

Analysis: The arbitrator's logic is built on the principle of foreseeability and professional negligence. The core idea is that if you are aware of a likely risk based on past experience, you are responsible for the fallout if you fail to mitigate that risk. Look for a principle that connects 'prior knowledge of a potential problem' with 'accountability for the outcome.' It's the professional version of 'fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.'

Passage Stimulus

Passage Redacted

Unlock Full Passage

19.

Which one of the following principles underlies the arbitrator's argument?

Correct Answer
A
The arbitrator’s reasoning relies on the idea that managers must account for foreseeable problems (like known contractor delays); failing to do so makes them partly responsible for resulting harm.
Upgrade Your Prep

Ready to go beyond free explanations?

LSAT Perfection is the #1 modern LSAT prep platform, trusted by thousands of students for comprehensive test strategies, advanced drilling, and full analytics on every PrepTest.

Detailed explanations for 59 PrepTests
Advanced drillset builder
Personalized analytics
Built-in Wrong Answer Journal
Explore Perfection Plus for full LSAT prep