# June 2013 LSAT, LR1, Q16, Roxanne and Luke

Crowdsourcing the June 2013 LSAT:  June 2013 LSAT Explanation Central | About this project Guest blogger: Larkin Robson

This is a “most logically completes the argument” question. On this type of question, we want to determine what can be correctly concluded from the argument given the premises. In this instance, we have a general rule (the second sentence) and a specific set of facts about Roxanne & Luke (the first sentence). This question is actually, very subtly, the same as a correct application question where we have a general rule and a set of facts and we need to apply the general rule correctly to the set of facts.

A. The general rule provided in the stimulus (the second sentence) only talks about what would not be wrong; we have no idea what actually would be wrong. Hence saying that something (indeed, anything) would be wrong for Roxanne to do is incorrect.

B. This answer choice correctly discusses what would not be wrong. However, we need an answer that says it is not wrong for Roxanne to do X because Luke did not expect Roxanne to do X. This answer says that it is not wrong for Roxanne to do X because Luke did not expect Y, which is not an action by Roxanne at all. So this one is also incorrect.

C. Same problem as A. The general rule provided in the stimulus (the second sentence) only talks about what would not be wrong, we have no idea what actually would be wrong. Hence saying that something (indeed anything) would be wrong for Roxanne to do is incorrect.

D.  This is the right answer.  We needed an answer that says it is not wrong for Roxanne to do X because Luke did not expect Roxanne to do X. That's exactly what this one says.

E. Same problem as both A and C. The general rule provided in the stimulus (the second sentence) only talks about what would not be wrong, we have no idea what actually would be wrong. Hence saying that something (indeed anything) would be wrong for Roxanne to do is incorrect.

About Larkin: Larkin Robson is an LSAT Tutor and Attorney based out of New York City. He has a JD from NYU School of Law, has taught at West Virginia University School of Law and John Jay College in Manhattan. He has been teaching the LSAT for 8 years and founded an independent boutique LSAT company called 180 Degrees LSAT. Like Nathan, he scored a 179 on the actual test. His website is 180degreeslsat.com Tweet him @180degreeslsat.

From Larkin: I like the LSAT because there is actually a reason for the test. It is testing critical thinking and reading comprehension, both skills that are useful and valuable in the real world.  I am a die hard philosophy buff and I think that the humanities and critical thinking are vastly undervalued in today's society, and the LSAT is essentially testing those skills.  It means that studying for the test does not mean you are just studying for a stupid test, you are actually learning something useful.

Please ask questions and/or suggest corrections to anything that seems confusing... we want to make this the best resource we can for LSAT students. We'll have all the June 2013 explanations up as quickly as possible. Thanks for reading. Tell your friends! --nathan