Necessary AssumptionDiff: Medium
Logic Breakdown
Passage Summary: Usually, you can keep quiet to save someone's feelings, but not if the truth helps them. Since knowing the boss is mad would help Jason improve, his coworker Jane has to break the bad news.
Conclusion: Jane is obligated to tell Jason that his supervisor is unhappy with his work.
Reasoning: While withholding painful information is sometimes okay, it is not justified if the person would benefit from it; Jason would benefit from this information because it would allow him to improve his performance.
Analysis: The argument identifies a situation where withholding information is 'not justified,' but then leaps to the conclusion that Jane 'should' (is required to) provide that information. This is the 'Gap.' Just because you aren't *allowed* to hide something doesn't automatically mean you are *required* to be the one to say it. Look for an assumption that bridges this gap—something that says if withholding information isn't justified, then one has a duty to disclose it.
Conclusion: Jane is obligated to tell Jason that his supervisor is unhappy with his work.
Reasoning: While withholding painful information is sometimes okay, it is not justified if the person would benefit from it; Jason would benefit from this information because it would allow him to improve his performance.
Analysis: The argument identifies a situation where withholding information is 'not justified,' but then leaps to the conclusion that Jane 'should' (is required to) provide that information. This is the 'Gap.' Just because you aren't *allowed* to hide something doesn't automatically mean you are *required* to be the one to say it. Look for an assumption that bridges this gap—something that says if withholding information isn't justified, then one has a duty to disclose it.
Passage Stimulus
Passage Redacted
Unlock Full Passage25.Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies?
Correct Answer
E
E bridges the missing link the author relies on: that Jason would benefit from being able to improve his supervisor's opinion. With that, knowing about the displeasure counts as a benefit, so under the stated principle there is no justification for withholding, and Jane should tell him. Negation test: if Jason would not benefit from improving his supervisor's opinion, then knowing this information would not be a benefit, and the principle would not require disclosure—collapsing the argument.
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