Logic Breakdown

Passage Summary: If you cause a problem on purpose, you're in trouble; if it was an accident you couldn't have predicted, you shouldn't be blamed.

Reasoning: The passage establishes rules for blame: knowingly causing misfortune warrants blame, but unwittingly causing it may not, especially if it was unforeseeable.

Analysis: This is a Principle Justify question, so we need to find a specific scenario in the answer choices that perfectly mirrors the logic of the provided rules. The most powerful rule here is the 'never' condition: no blame if the act was both unwitting and unforeseeable. You should look for a scenario where someone causes a negative outcome by accident and had no way of knowing it would happen, concluding that they are not at fault. Avoid choices that try to blame someone for an accident that *was* foreseeable.

Passage Stimulus

Passage Redacted

Unlock Full Passage

11.

The principles above, if valid, most help to justify the reasoning in which one of the following?

Correct Answer
B
B matches the principle exactly: Oblicek neither knew nor could have reasonably foreseen the harm, so if the harm occurs, she should not be blamed. This is the stated sufficient condition for no blame.
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