LSAT Explanation PT 32, S4, Q3: John: It was wrong of you

LSAT Question Stem

The principle that Michiko invokes, if established, would justify which one of the following judgments? 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Principle (Misc) question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is A. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

First, let's analyze the passage. John argues that he cannot be held responsible for the traffic accident because his poor vision caused it, and he cannot control his deteriorating vision. Michiko counters that John is responsible for his hazardous driving because he knows his vision is poor. She states that people are responsible for the consequences of actions they voluntarily undertake if they know those actions risk such consequences.

Now, let's identify the question type and what it's asking us to do. The question type is Principle (Misc), and it asks us to identify which judgment would be justified if Michiko's principle were established.

Let's examine each answer choice:

a) Colleen was responsible for missing her flight home from Paris because she decided to take one more trip to the Eiffel Tower even though she knew she might not have sufficient time to get to the airport if she did so.

This answer choice aligns with Michiko's principle. Colleen voluntarily undertook the action of visiting the Eiffel Tower, knowing that it risked her missing her flight. Therefore, she is responsible for the consequence of missing her flight.

b) Colleen was responsible for having offended her brother when she reported to him an offensive comment made about his colleague, although she did not know her brother would mistakenly understand the comment to be about himself.

This answer choice does not align with Michiko's principle because Colleen did not know that her action risked the consequence of offending her brother. She was unaware of the potential misunderstanding.

c) Colleen was responsible for her automobile's having been stolen two weeks ago because she did not take any of the precautions that the town police recommended in the antitheft manual they published last week.

This answer choice does not align with Michiko's principle because Colleen's inaction (not taking precautions) is not the same as voluntarily undertaking an action. Additionally, we cannot assume she read the manual or knew about the risks.

d) Colleen was responsible for her cat's being frightened because, even though it was her brother who allowed the door to slam shut, she knew that cats are often frightened by loud noises.

This answer choice does not align with Michiko's principle because Colleen did not voluntarily undertake the action that caused the consequence. It was her brother who slammed the door, not Colleen.

e) Colleen was not responsible for losing her job because, knowing that her position was in danger of being eliminated, she did everything possible to preserve it.

This answer choice does not align with Michiko's principle because it discusses a situation where Colleen is not responsible for the consequence. Michiko's principle deals with situations where people are responsible for the consequences of their actions.

The correct answer is A. Colleen's decision to visit the Eiffel Tower, knowing it might cause her to miss her flight, aligns with Michiko's principle that people are responsible for the consequences of actions they voluntarily undertake if they know those actions risk such consequences.