Logic Breakdown

Passage Summary: A factory says it shouldn't have to clean up a mess it made because it hired a separate company to handle the trash, so it's that company's fault, not theirs.

Conclusion: The factory should not be held responsible for cleaning up the polluted wetlands.

Reasoning: Even though the factory's waste caused the pollution, the actual disposal process was managed by an independent contractor rather than the factory itself.

Analysis: The underlying principle here is a shift of responsibility: an entity is not liable for the results of an action if that action was performed by an independent third party. To parallel this, look for a scenario where someone avoids blame or duty because they outsourced the task to someone else. The logic is essentially 'I didn't do it, my contractor did,' regardless of the fact that it was the original entity's waste or project.

Passage Stimulus

Passage Redacted

Unlock Full Passage

2.

Which one of the following arguments most closely conforms to the principle underlying the reasoning in the spokesperson's argument?

Correct Answer
B
B applies the same principle: it argues against holding parents responsible for the offenses of older adolescents because those adolescents act independently and often contrary to parental wishes. That mirrors the factory’s “not to blame because an independent party acted” reasoning.
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