PT62 S2 Q4 Forum

[bilbaosan]

Could someone explain why E provides more support than B?

First we know nothing why Azedcorp didn't sell before:
- Maybe it was because the offer was too extremely low (addressed by answer B)
- Maybe it was because they did not want to sell at any price (addressed by answer E)
- Maybe they did not want to sell to Carol Morris but would sell to someone else (not addressed at all)

But the main problem with E is that it only leads to the conclusion that Azedcorp will sell, but nowhere we can deduct they would sell to Morris - after all, there is bankruptcy, so other creditors may get them in lieu of debt and Morris will not get them. But the conclusion is very specific - Morris will be the majority owner.

If the conclusion was about Azedcorp losing their shares in the newspaper, E indeed would be a valid answer. But since it explicitly states that Morris will get them, and the connection between the bankruptcy sale and Morris acquisition is vague at best, I fail to see how E leads to this conclusion more than B.

[ScottRiqui]

Could someone explain why E provides more support than B?

First we know nothing why Azedcorp didn't sell before:
- Maybe it was because the offer was too extremely low (addressed by answer B)
- Maybe it was because they did not want to sell at any price (addressed by answer E)
- Maybe they did not want to sell to Carol Morris but would sell to someone else (not addressed at all)

But the main problem with E is that it only leads to the conclusion that Azedcorp will sell, but nowhere we can deduct they would sell to Morris - after all, there is bankruptcy, so other creditors may get them in lieu of debt and Morris will not get them. But the conclusion is very specific - Morris will be the majority owner.

If the conclusion was about Azedcorp losing their shares in the newspaper, E indeed would be a valid answer. But since it explicitly states that Morris will get them, and the connection between the bankruptcy sale and Morris acquisition is vague at best, I fail to see how E leads to this conclusion more than B.

The stimulus says that the ONLY (emphasis added) obstacle to Morris' acquiring a majority share is that Azedcorp won't sell. So presumably, Morris not being able to beat out the creditors or other potential buyers in a bankruptcy sale isn't an issue. Answer 'E' removes what is explicitly stated to be her only obstacle, so it's the best answer.

There's nothing in the stimulus to suggest that Azedcorp would be willing to sell at ANY price after an established history of "steadfastly refusing" to sell, so simply offering them a higher price than they paid for the newspaper (AC 'B') doesn't provide a clear path to Morris getting the shares.

[PourMeTea]

Post removed.

[neprep]

Could someone explain why E provides more support than B?

First we know nothing why Azedcorp didn't sell before:
- Maybe it was because the offer was too extremely low (addressed by answer B)
- Maybe it was because they did not want to sell at any price (addressed by answer E)
- Maybe they did not want to sell to Carol Morris but would sell to someone else (not addressed at all)

But the main problem with E is that it only leads to the conclusion that Azedcorp will sell, but nowhere we can deduct they would sell to Morris - after all, there is bankruptcy, so other creditors may get them in lieu of debt and Morris will not get them. But the conclusion is very specific - Morris will be the majority owner.

If the conclusion was about Azedcorp losing their shares in the newspaper, E indeed would be a valid answer. But since it explicitly states that Morris will get them, and the connection between the bankruptcy sale and Morris acquisition is vague at best, I fail to see how E leads to this conclusion more than B.

I spent a few seconds between (B) and (E) too, but went with (E) because I felt (B) was ultimately irrelevant: So what if she offered Azcorp "much more" than they paid for the shares? What if Azcorp bought the shares in the company in 1855, and since then the price of the shares has gone up substantially? What if Azcorp bought the shares priced at $1, and she offered them $5 per share, but the current market value is $100 per share? That would mean than even if (B) were true, there's no reason to think that Azcorp will sell. For (B) to be more attractive, I'd like it to say "The reason Azcorp wasn't selling the shares to Morris was that her offer was far too below what they could make on the capital markets, but recently she offered Azcorp 15% more than market value."

You're right in that (E) doesn't guarantee that our friendly-neighborhood shark Ms. Morris will get the shares, but that answer will certainly make someone on CNBC go "ahhh, good point, Santelli." It's no doubt superior to (B).

Now, this was my understanding of the question, and I suspect LSAC's expectation of the kind of reasoning that gets rid of (B).

ETA: Also another way to understand it is what PMT and Mr. Riqui just said. Whatever the reason (I've only provided a hypothetical above), the premise says they won't sell. She can do a rain dance with burning sage and they still won't sell. Can't contradict the premise.

[bilbaosan]

The main problem I had with E is the degree of assurance. The stimulus is clear that Morris soon WILL be the majority owner - a very strong prediction. However E says that bankruptcy will probably force the sale. Not only it is uncertain whether the sale would actually happen at all (because of "probably"), but it is completely uncertain whether it would be sold to Morris and not to someone else.

Now any single of those wouldn't probably affect the logic, but both of them combined basically make E a weaker answer comparing to B, when the logic sequence is at least clear.

[bilbaosan]

The stimulus says that the ONLY (emphasis added) obstacle to Morris' acquiring a majority share is that Azedcorp won't sell. So presumably, Morris not being able to beat out the creditors or other potential buyers in a bankruptcy sale isn't an issue.

The bankruptcy sale works completely different. It is a specific legal procedure with certain rules, and the difference is important enough to matter. After all, it is Law School admission test, not a medical college test. Those guys should have known better than that.

Answer 'E' removes what is explicitly stated to be her only obstacle, so it's the best answer.

Not really. Answer E changes the whole situation significantly enough and introduces too many unknown variables. There is no direct connection between the forced sale and Morris acquiring it.

There's nothing in the stimulus to suggest that Azedcorp would be willing to sell at ANY price after an established history of "steadfastly refusing" to sell, so simply offering them a higher price than they paid for the newspaper (AC 'B') doesn't provide a clear path to Morris getting the shares.

Answer B is actually less questionable than E. The stimulus doesn't say Azedcorp will not sell the shares. It only said they have refused to sell so far, without explaining why. B assumes that the reason for refusal was the offer was too low, and with the current high offer it will be accepted and Morris will get his majority. I don't see any fault in this logic.

[PourMeTea]

Post removed.

[bilbaosan]

1. On the LSAT, don't bring in real-world knowledge. Work with what the writers gave you.

2. Yes there is, because the stimulus explicitly says it was the ONLY OBSTACLE.

3. Does it matter WHY they won't sell? No. We just know they won't. B is completely out of scope.

1. They gave me "bankruptcy", so I'm working with it. Again, this is the law school test, and those people are expected not to throw in the words carelessly.

2. But if you claim they won't sell to Morris, why would the forced sale then be to Morris? All the stem says they would be forced to sell, which may or may not be to Morris.

3. No, we do not know that they WON'T sell. In fact we know from the stimulus that somehow they WILL sell because of analyst prediction. All we know from the stimulus that so far they have refused to sell; future possibilities are not addressed in stimulus. Thus B is valid because it addresses the possibility that the reason they refused to sell so far was a cheap offer, so with the higher offer they would indeed sell.

And how does "probably" in E address this? "Probably" means it may happen or it may not happen, while the stimulus says that he will be the owner. What if it doesn't happen, how would he end up being the owner?

[062914123]

.

[Jeffort]

The main problem I had with E is the degree of assurance. The stimulus is clear that Morris soon WILL be the majority owner - a very strong prediction. However E says that bankruptcy will probably force the sale. Not only it is uncertain whether the sale would actually happen at all (because of "probably"), but it is completely uncertain whether it would be sold to Morris and not to someone else.

Now any single of those wouldn't probably affect the logic, but both of them combined basically make E a weaker answer comparing to B, when the logic sequence is at least clear.

There are a few flaws with this line of reasoning. The most important flaw is that the reasoning is based on making an unwarranted assumption.

(B) does not support the conclusion at all unless you assume that Azedcorps refusal to sell the shares they own is because they haven't yet been offered a high enough price. There is no basis in the evidence for making that assumption, they could be refusing to sell for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with how much $$ they are offered for the shares. Even if the refusal to sell is based on price, it could be the case that the minimum they would accept is something ridiculous like 10 times what they paid. We just have no way of reasonably concluding/assuming what reason(s) are causing them to refuse to sell, we are only told that they refuse to sell without being told why (the cause for their refusal is unknown).

So, in order to say that (B) provides any support for the conclusion at all, you must make the unsupported/unwarranted assumption that the refusal to sell is being caused by not being offered a satisfactory price. Even if we could reasonably make this assumption, we would still have no idea what minimum price they would require being offered in order to even consider being willing to sell, maybe the offer described in (B) might not be enough for them to even consider. Maybe they want an insane minimum price.

The correct answer choice on strengthen as well as weaken questions will never require an unwarranted/unsupported assumption in order for it to have a strengthening or weakening effect on the conclusion. This is a common way trap answers are constructed on str and wkn questions, they are answers that would str/wkn if you add in an assumption about something related to the substance of argument that is left uncertain. A really easy method for avoiding attractive trap answers on these questions is to pay attention to whether or not the justification in your head for an answer choice involves you including an 'if this is true' extra fact to link the AC to the conclusion in a supporting/weakening way.

Another problem with your analysis is that you dislike (E) because it doesn't perfect the argument and make the conclusion air tight. That would be a valid reason to eliminate it for a sufficient assumption/justify question type, but regular strengthen questions do not require the correct answer choice to make the conclusion rock solid/logically guaranteed. It only has to make the conclusion more likely to be true than it is without the AC as a premise.

One one hand you are discounting (E) because it doesn't support the conclusion enough (doesn't guarantee they will sell and Morris will be the buyer) while saying (B) supports it more but having to base that evaluation of strengthening power on the unwarranted assumption that price is the reason behind their refusal to sell. If one answer strengthens an argument without adding in any assumptions, it is always better than an answer that requires an assumption for it to even strengthen the argument a little bit. Even if it were safe to assume the refusal to sell is based on price, how do you then say that (B) is a stronger answer than (E)? How would that make it more likely that Morris will get the shares than if Azedcorp goes bankrupt and is forced to sell the shares? You would have to make several additional unwarranted assumptions to make (B) stronger than (E), which is flawed reasoning. Your same reasoning for discounting (E) based on it not guaranteeing the shares will be sold to Morris also applies to (B) and even more significantly in terms of the uncertainty it leaves open about whether or not Morris will indeed be able to buy the shares. There is even more uncertainty as to how likely (B) makes it that Morris will get the shares due to the uncertainty of the assumptions required to even say that it would open up the possibility of Azedcorp being willing to sell the shares to anyone.

[ScottRiqui]

The analysts in the stimulus are only *predicting* that Morris will soon obtain a majority share, so the chain of events doesn't have to be absolute; it only has to justify/support the analysts' prediction.

AC 'B' isn't enough, because it doesn't establish that Azedcorp will ever willingly sell, regardless of the price. In fact, there's nothing in 'B' that even tells us that Morris' current offer is higher than the offers Azedcorp has refused in the past; it could be a lowball.

A forced bankruptcy sale is still a sale for the purposes of the question. The stimulus said that the only obstacle for Morris is that that Azedcorp won't sell. AC 'E' introduces a probable sale. That's enough to justify the analysts' prediction.

[bilbaosan]

Yes, B requires an assumption. But so does E. We don't know if sale even is going to happen, after all. And we don't know if a forced sale would sell to Morris and not someone else, this is never stated anywhere. Both of answers require an unwarranted assumption.

B makes it true only if we assume the reason for refusing the sale was a lowball offer (this isn't stated). Here we have one unwarranted assumption.

E makes it true only if the sale actually happens and the forced sale will be to Morris (neither is stated). Here we have two unwarranted assumptions.

I fail to see what makes E providing more support.

[Jeffort]

Yes, B requires an assumption. But so does E. We don't know if sale even is going to happen, after all. And we don't know if a forced sale would sell to Morris and not someone else, this is never stated anywhere. Both of answers require an unwarranted assumption.

B makes it true only if we assume the reason for refusing the sale was a lowball offer (this isn't stated). Here we have one unwarranted assumption.

E makes it true only if the sale actually happens and the forced sale will be to Morris (neither is stated). Here we have two unwarranted assumptions.

I fail to see what makes E providing more support.

You are applying different standards to the answer choices. You cannot mix and match and selectively pick which rules of analysis to apply to one answer choice and then use a different set of standards to evaluate another answer choice and treat the results as the same for the same question type.

(E) provides support without making any assumptions, (B) does not. (B) provides zero support for the conclusion without an unwarranted assumption. (E) makes the conclusion more likely to be true without adding in any assumptions. End of story, (E) strengthens, (B) does not, before making ANY assumptions!

Your problem with (E) is that it requires an assumption for it to perfect the argument and make the conclusion something that must be true. Fine and dandy, but the question type doesn't require that level of support from the correct answer choice.

You need to get your LSAT fundamentals straightened out and use the right rules of analysis for the right question types and not get them mixed up like you are doing here.

[bilbaosan]

The analysts in the stimulus are only *predicting* that Morris will soon obtain a majority share, so the chain of events doesn't have to be absolute; it only has to justify/support the analysts' prediction.

AC 'B' isn't enough, because it doesn't establish that Azedcorp will ever willingly sell, regardless of the price. In fact, there's nothing in 'B' that even tells us that Morris' current offer is higher than the offers Azedcorp has refused in the past; it could be a lowball.

A forced bankruptcy sale is still a sale for the purposes of the question. The stimulus said that the only obstacle for Morris is that that Azedcorp won't sell. AC 'E' introduces a probable sale. That's enough to justify the analysts' prediction.

To me both B and E play with probabilities, and it is impossible to say which probability is more likely to happen, and therefore better supports the prediction.

B relies on the probability that the new offer is good enough for the sale to happen. No certainty here.
E plays with the probability straight in the answer - a sale may or may not happen (even if we assume the bankruptcy sale would 100% bring shares to Morris, which to me is a weak assumption). No certainty here either.

I don't know why they came up with such a crappy answer; it would be more likely if they removed "probably" from E.

[ScottRiqui]

You need to quit thinking that a forced sale due to bankruptcy isn't a "sale", as discussed in the stimulus.

From the stimulus: Morris wants a majority share. The only obstacle to her obtaining a majority share is that Azedcorp won't sell.

AC 'E' : A sale due to bankruptcy is likely to happen soon.

Those two together provide adequate support for the analysts' position (which is only a prediction, after all). You don't need to assume anything. The whole "but what if someone else buys the shares at the bankruptcy sale?" thing is a rabbit-hole; the stimulus plainly says that the only obstacle to Morris getting the majority is the fact that Azedcorp won't sell. Remove that obstacle, and the stimulus says that she gets the majority she wants. AC 'E' removes that obstacle.

And since it sounds like you're getting hung up on this as well, we don't have to prove the analysts right - we only have to support their prediction. Even if the bankruptcy sale doesn't happen, the fact that it appeared likely is enough to justify the analysts' prediction.

[bilbaosan]

(E) provides support without making any assumptions, (B) does not. (B) provides zero support for the conclusion without an unwarranted assumption. (E) makes the conclusion more likely to be true without adding in any assumptions. End of story, (E) strengthens, (B) does not, before making ANY assumptions!

Your problem with (E) is that it requires an assumption for it to perfect the argument and make the conclusion something that must be true. Fine and dandy, but the question type doesn't require that level of support from the correct answer choice.

How does it? If the "probably" in E fails - and it can fail - and the sale doesn't happen, how does it help the conclusion? It does not.

[ScottRiqui]

(E) provides support without making any assumptions, (B) does not. (B) provides zero support for the conclusion without an unwarranted assumption. (E) makes the conclusion more likely to be true without adding in any assumptions. End of story, (E) strengthens, (B) does not, before making ANY assumptions!

Your problem with (E) is that it requires an assumption for it to perfect the argument and make the conclusion something that must be true. Fine and dandy, but the question type doesn't require that level of support from the correct answer choice.

How does it? If the "probably" in E fails - and it can fail - and the sale doesn't happen, how does it help the conclusion? It does not.

Because even if the sale falls through, the fact that it was likely is enough to justify/support the analysts' position, which is all we're being asked to do.

The fact that Morris has made an offer that's some amount over what the company paid for the paper gives *no* likelihood that the company will accept it after a history of "steadfastly refusing" to sell.

[Jeffort]

(E) provides support without making any assumptions, (B) does not. (B) provides zero support for the conclusion without an unwarranted assumption. (E) makes the conclusion more likely to be true without adding in any assumptions. End of story, (E) strengthens, (B) does not, before making ANY assumptions!

Your problem with (E) is that it requires an assumption for it to perfect the argument and make the conclusion something that must be true. Fine and dandy, but the question type doesn't require that level of support from the correct answer choice.

How does it? If the "probably" in E fails - and it can fail - and the sale doesn't happen, how does it help the conclusion? It does not.

This is a strengthen question, the correct answer choice is not required to prove that the conclusion must be true!! It only needs to make the conclusion more likely to be true without dragging in any unwarranted assumptions. (E) does this, it makes it more likely to be true that Morris will end up with the shares if bankruptcy forces a sale of the shares without assuming anything by giving a probable way around the refusal to sell obstacle. Why do you care that it doesn't make an air tight case? That is not a requirement for this question type!!! This is not a sufficient assumption question!!

I don't understand your basis of reasoning for saying that the possibility down the road if bk doesn't end up forcing Azedcorp to sell the shares or even if it does but Morris doesn't end up getting them would change whether or not (E) provides support for the argument. How do you reason that those possibilities playing out later in time would undercut (E) being something that provides support for the argument as is? It requires some sort of flawed method of reasoning to say that.

(B) requires an assumption just to say that it does at least increase the probability of the conclusion being true, and even with that assumption it still falls far short of guaranteeing that the conclusion is true. How could you say it provides more support than (E) when it has the same problem you are using against (E) in terms of not guaranteeing the conclusion and requires an uncertain assumption to even get that far? Without the unwarranted assumption (B) doesn't strengthen the conclusion at all since it gives no reason to believe that price will overcome their refusal to sell, while (E) strengthens quite a bit without making any assumptions since it gives a situation where their refusal to sell doesn't matter (forced sale is not willing!) and would no longer be an obstacle to Morris and we are told she wants to buy the shares.

You are using a double standard/mixing and matching standards for what criteria the CR must satisfy. You cannot apply different rules to different answer choices to determine which is 'better'. Do you understand that you are applying different criteria to determine the strength of (B) than you are using to evaluate (E)? On the LSAT you must evaluate all the answer choices with the same criteria, how does the answer choice affect the reasoning of the argument 'as is, without any unwarranted assumptions'. Using an unwarranted assumption to say one answer is stronger than another in comparison to how much the other strengthens without adding in any assumptions is applying different standards of evaluation.

You really need to get your LSAT LR analysis fundamentals down better since some of your mistaken lines of thinking are based on misunderstandings of the basic rules/requirements and criteria for the question types. Your misconceptions about what is and isn't fair game to take into account when evaluating arguments and answer choices are what is causing you trouble with this question and will certainly cause you much trouble with the LR sections if you don't get them straightened out soon.

Seriously though, you have some serious misconceptions of how to analyze LSAT LR arguments that need fixing if you want to improve your score. Otherwise you are just going to continue beating your head against the wall arguing with the test for many more weeks to come and wanting to continue to claim that it is unfair, poorly written or whatever. No offense, but I've noticed you've been fighting against the test and making various 'unfairness' 'test is flawed', etc. types of arguments here on TLS for a while now about various aspects of the test that are giving you trouble. Arguing against the LSAT is always a sign that you are misunderstanding something since it is a solid test with sound logic behind every question. Recalcitrant test takers rarely perform well since arguing against the test is counterproductive to learning and assimilating the rules of the test and logic it follows. The problems you are having are not caused by flaws in the test, they are being cause by flaws in your reasoning processes.

[bilbaosan]

Because even if the sale falls through, the fact that it was likely is enough to justify/support the analysts' position, which is all we're being asked to do.

The fact that Morris has made an offer that's some amount over what the company paid for the paper gives *no* likelihood that the company will accept it after a history of "steadfastly refusing" to sell.

We do not know if the sale was likely enough. "Probably" may mean anything from 99.99% to 0.01%. And it doesn't support the conclusion which is completely certain ("Morris will") versus the answer uncertainty ("will probably soon force the sale").

[ScottRiqui]

Because even if the sale falls through, the fact that it was likely is enough to justify/support the analysts' position, which is all we're being asked to do.

The fact that Morris has made an offer that's some amount over what the company paid for the paper gives *no* likelihood that the company will accept it after a history of "steadfastly refusing" to sell.

We do not know if the sale was likely enough. "Probably" may mean anything from 99.99% to 0.01%. And it doesn't support the conclusion which is completely certain ("Morris will") versus the answer uncertainty ("will probably soon force the sale").

Pick up any LSAT prep book and go back over the fundamentals. "Probably" is greater than 50%. In what world would you ever say "It's probably going to rain" if the likelihood were only 1%? Seriously?

Again, we're not having to support the conclusion in an ironclad fashion (and even if we were, 'E' is *still* the better answer.) We're only having to support the analysts' position. Answer 'B' doesn't do that at all, unless you start dragging in outside assumptions about Azedcorp's reasons for not selling in the past, as well as assumptions about the size of Morris' offer compared to previous offers.

But 'E' doesn't require any assumptions. Per the stimulus, a sale WILL get Morris the shares she wants, and 'E' says that a sale is probable. If you were an analyst, wouldn't that be enough to support your prediction that Morris will end up with the majority share she wants?

[PourMeTea]

Post removed.

[JWP1022]

Probably means "likely." What world are you living in bro? Also, you're never going to learn the test if you post questions about certain concepts/LR stems and then fight tooth and nail when people try to explain them to you.

Edit:

Here's a definition. You're wrong, sorry.

prob·a·bly
ˈpräbəblē,ˈpräblē/Submit
adverb
adverb: probably
1.
almost certainly; as far as one knows or can tell.
"she would probably never see him again"
synonyms: in all likelihood, in all probability, as likely as not, (very/most) likely, ten to one, the chances are, doubtless, no doubt;

[PourMeTea]

Post removed.

[ScottRiqui]

OP, I'd also like to point out that this is question FOUR in the section, meaning that it's what we like to call "a gimme". If you're having this much trouble in the first half-dozen questions of an LR section, and thinking about it this much, it's a sure sign that you're missing something fundamental.

It's really as easy as this:

The stimulus tells us that only one thing is holding Morris back from getting what she wants.
Analysts predict that she's going to get what she wants anyway. How could we support their prediction?
Oh look - one of the answer choices says that the VERY THING Morris needs is probably going to happen!

That's all there is to it - mark 'E', take your point, and move on to the questions where it's not going to be this straightforward.

[bilbaosan]

This is a strengthen question, the correct answer choice is not required to prove that the conclusion must be true!! It only needs to make the conclusion more likely to be true without dragging in any unwarranted assumptions. (E) does this, it makes it more likely to be true that Morris will end up with the shares if bankruptcy forces a sale of the shares without assuming anything by giving a probable way around the refusal to sell obstacle. Why do you care that it doesn't make an air tight case? That is not a requirement for this question type!!! This is not a sufficient assumption question!!

Probably I didn't explain myself well. I do not expect the answer to be airtight, but I do expect it to provide significantly (i.e. beyond reasonable doubt) more support than any other answer. It isn't just matter of logic or "LSAT thinking" - there is always a possibility someone would sue LSAC, and they would have to defend their reasoning in the court where any reference to "LSAT thinking" won't stand up. The stakes are high here, it is not just some random IQ test on Internet nobody cares about, so they need to make it bullet-proof so it would withstand the judicial scrutiny.

Now, I don't disagree that E does make the conclusion more likely - but only IF the probability happens to be true (which we don't know). However so does B IF the current offer is good enough to be accepted (which we don't know either). Neither answer makes the argument airtight, but neither could be stated to provide more support than another, since both rely on things outside the scope of the question.

B does require an assumption, and assuming the offer would be accepted (again, we don't know the probability) it makes the conclusion not only supported, but airtight. If it is not accepted, the conclusion falls apart. But so it does if probability in E doesn't realize, and the bankruptcy doesn't force Azedcorp to sell shares.

Note that E still doesn't make it airtight even if the probability happens, since it would require an assumption the forced sale goes to Morris. All we know from the question is that Azedcorp refuses to sell, but it doesn't state that if forced to sell, it would sell to Morris - it may sell to someone else.

You are using a double standard/mixing and matching standards for what criteria the CR must satisfy. You cannot apply different rules to different answer choices to determine which is 'better'. Do you understand that you are applying different criteria to determine the strength of (B) than you are using to evaluate (E)? On the LSAT you must evaluate all the answer choices with the same criteria, how does the answer choice affect the reasoning of the argument 'as is, without any unwarranted assumptions'.

That's the problem, because none of the answers supports the prediction as-is, without any assumptions.

You really need to get your LSAT LR analysis fundamentals down better since some of your mistaken lines of thinking are based on misunderstandings of the basic rules/requirements and criteria for the question types. Your misconceptions about what is and isn't fair game to take into account when evaluating arguments and answer choices are what is causing you trouble with this question and will certainly cause you much trouble with the LR sections if you don't get them straightened out soon.

So far I'm not sure the trouble is with my thinking, and not with the question itself. See, I'm not looking at things the way LSAC would look at them, but the way the general public (which is jury) and the judge would look at them. It makes little sense arguing with LSAC reasoning because they can simply say "we think it is right, you don't agree? sucks to be you" and that's it. But they cannot do it in a court, and this is why there must be something else beyond it.

And the test isn't unfair, it is just biased. Maybe I should take the Indian one, the English is way simpler.