Passage Summary: Sanderson knew a factory was closing but didn't tell his cousin, knowing the cousin would then believe it was staying open. The author says this is wrong because it's essentially lying, and lying is wrong whether you say something false or just stay silent to mislead someone.

Conclusion: Sanderson's decision to withhold information from his cousin was morally wrong.

Reasoning: Lying is wrong, and intentionally misleading someone counts as lying; furthermore, there is no moral difference between an act of commission (stating something) and an act of omission (failing to state something) if the intent is the same.

Analysis: The argument hinges on the 'intent' behind the silence. The author defines lying as 'making a statement with the intention of misleading.' To apply this to Sanderson's silence, the author must assume that Sanderson's failure to speak was done with that specific intent. While the text says Sanderson 'knew' his cousin would be misled, in the world of the LSAT, 'knowledge' of a result isn't always the same as the 'intent' to produce it. The argument also requires that there are no other factors that would make this specific silence morally acceptable.