Logical Reasoning · Principle (Justify)
PrepTest 153 · Section 3 · Question 2
Phase 1 (your first ~400 questions): read the guidance, then answer. No clock.
Step 1 · Pre-Question Guidance · read this first
- “justified”
- “no way”
- “sometimes”
- “important”
Playground logic
Priya admits she left out the messy part of the garden club when she recruited Tommy, but she says it was fine because Tommy would never have joined otherwise and the garden is great. The patty is "it was necessary" plus "the result is good"; the top bun is "so the fib-by-silence was okay." The rule that glues them: a not-quite-honest move can be okay when it brings a good outcome.
Step 2 · The kid story
The Worm Secret
Priya wanted Tommy to join the school garden club. When she pitched it, she talked about strawberries, sunflowers, and the cool watering cans. She did not mention the worms. Or the compost bin. Or the smell. Lulu frowned at her clipboard. "You left out the gross parts," she said. Priya sipped her juice box calmly. "I did. But Tommy would never sign up if he heard the word compost first. He would never have walked in the door with the whole truth. And once he is there, he will grow his own snacks and stop hiding candy in his sock drawer. That is a huge win for Tommy." Lulu tapped her pencil. "So you are saying the good ending makes the sneaky beginning okay?" Priya nodded. "Sometimes, yes."
Step 3 · Try the model question
Priya: I left the unpleasant chores out of my garden club pitch, but that was acceptable. Tommy would not have joined if I had told him everything up front, and joining the club will do him a lot of good.
Which one of the following rules, if accepted, would best back up Priya's reasoning?
Step 4 · The courtroom tale
The Surprise Party Defense
A neighbor sued Mr. Whitfield's client for "misleading" him. The client had told him the backyard gathering was "just a barbecue" so he would come. It was really a surprise party for his own sixtieth birthday. "Your Honor," said Mr. Whitfield, "my client did hold back the truth. I concede it. But my neighbor-hating plaintiff would never have come to that yard if he knew forty people would sing to him. And he had the best night of his decade. He said so on the cake." The judge raised an eyebrow. "So your defense depends on a rule: a less-than-candid act may be excused by the good it brings about." "Exactly, Your Honor. Sometimes."
Step 5 · Work the real question
Open PrepTest 153, Section 3, Question 2 in your official copy from LSAC (for example in LawHub) and read it there.
Your answer
How to apply it
Label the conclusion first: something questionable is being called acceptable. Then gather the reasons: it was necessary for a goal, and the goal is valuable. Look for the choice that states a general rule letting a good outcome excuse a doubtful method. Drop any choice that would condemn the act, and any choice that only adds a fact instead of a rule linking means to ends.