Since anyone who makes an agreement has an obligation to fulfill the t

Question

Since anyone who makes an agreement has an obligation to fulfill the terms of that agreement, it follows that anyone who is obligated to perform an action has agreed to perform that action. Hence, saying that one has a legal obligation to perform a given action is the same as saying that one is required to fulfill one’s agreement to perform that action.

Which one of the following statements most accurately characterizes the argument’s reasoning flaws?

(A) The argument fails to make a crucial distinction between an action one is legally obligated to perform and an action with good consequences, and it takes for granted that everything true of legal obligations is true of obligations generally.

(B) The argument takes for granted that there are obligations other than those resulting from agreements made, and it fails to consider the possibility that actions that uphold agreements made are sometimes performed for reasons other than to uphold those agreements.

(C) The argument contains a premise that is logically equivalent to its conclusion, and it takes for granted that there are only certain actions that one should agree to perform.

(D) The argument treats a condition that is sufficient to make something an obligation as also a requirement for something to be an obligation, and it takes for granted that any obligation to perform an action is a legal obligation.

(E) The argument rests on an ambiguous use of the term “action,” and it fails to consider the possibility that people are sometimes unwilling to perform actions that they have agreed to perform.

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT

Whoa, now this is some bullshit. Let’s just look at the first sentence: “Since anyone who makes an agreement has an obligation to fulfill the terms of that agreement, it follows that anyone who is obligated to perform an action has agreed to perform that action.” Um, no it does not follow. If I sign a contract, then okay, I’m obligated to fulfill that contract’s terms. But if I get a speeding ticket, the state is going to obligate me to pay the ticket even if I do not “agree” to that obligation. I never had any choice in the matter.

This is a conditional reasoning error. It looks like “If A —> then B, therefore if B —> then A.” **** that. That is not right. This is such a huge and familiar flaw that we can just go straight to the answer choices and see if we can find it.

A) “Good consequences” is totally irrelevant.

B) This one goes wrong right off the bat. The argument doesn't "take for granted that there are obligations other than those resulting from agreements made." It does the exact opposite of this, by falsely concluding that obligations are always the result of agreements. Since the first half of this answer is wrong, I don't even have to read the second half.

C) The argument definitely doesn’t say anything about how you should only agree to perform certain actions. That’s enough, by itself, to conclusively eliminate this answer.

D) Yes. The argument's first sentence does have the sufficient/necessary, aka "conditional reasoning," error. (I noticed that one immediately, since it's the LSAT's most common flaw.) And the argument's second sentence does make the further flaw of equating obligations with legal obligations. This one is looking really good.

E) The term “action” is not ambiguously used here. Furthermore, the argument doesn’t need to consider that some people might not  want  to fulfill their obligations, since that wasn’t the point. You can not want to do something, but still do it anyway, since you agreed to it. Anyway, this is out.

Our answer is D.

sivatx2 · Answer

1. agreement ---> obligated
2. obligated ---> agreed for action 
3. => legal obligation for action ---> agreement (conclusion)
Conclusion is a converse of the earlier argument and it is improper, as it may not be true. 
It rains when I stayed home.
I stayed home then it must be raining( This is the logic used by the writer of the argument)
Let's see which choice finds this reasoning flaw.

(A) The argument fails to make a crucial distinction between an action one is legally obligated to perform and an action with good consequences, and it takes for granted that everything true of legal obligations is true of obligations generally. 
 There is no action with good consequence discussed here, hence it is irrelevant to the argument. Eliminate.

(B) The argument takes for granted that there are obligations other than those resulting from agreements made, and it fails to consider the possibility that actions that uphold agreements made are sometimes performed for reasons other than to uphold those agreements. 
 "other than resulting agreements" is out of scope of the argument. Eliminate.

(C) The argument contains a premise that is logically equivalent to its conclusion, and it takes for granted that there are only certain actions that one should agree to perform. 
 No, the premise is not logically equivalent to its conclusion. Eliminate

(D) The argument treats a condition that is sufficient to make something an obligation as also a requirement for something to be an obligation, and it takes for granted that any obligation to perform an action is a legal obligation. 
 This is as per the analysis earlier, the correct reasoning flaw. So the answer choice is D.

(E) The argument rests on an ambiguous use of the term “action,” and it fails to consider the possibility that people are sometimes unwilling to perform actions that they have agreed to perform. 
 "Action" is not ambiguous in the argument and this does not bring out the correct reasoning flaw. Eliminate

100mitra · Answer

Correct Option : D

1. Since anyone who   makes an agreement   has an   obligation to fulfill the terms of that agreement  , 
2. it follows that anyone   who is obligated to perform   an   action has agreed to perform that action  . 
3. Hence, saying that   one has a legal obligation to perform   a given action is the same as saying that   one is required to fulfill one’s agreement to perform that action

{This passage reminds me about, Aristotle, who has defined the  syllogism  in best, and good phrase mentioned below
 All men  are  mortal >> Socrates  is a  man >>Therefore,  Socrates  is  mortal }

Which one of the following statements most accurately characterizes the argument’s reasoning flaws?
So we want to find something related to something

(A)  Wrong comparison  : one is legally  obligated to perform  to  good consequences  irrelevant

(B)  Wrong  : this option is completely opposittly stated, Actually the argument gives detail about obligation and agreement

(C)  Wrong  : the descrption of stem: The premise = the conclusion? and only  certain actions  that one should  agree to perform  is not as per passage details mentioned above.

(D)  Correct  :  The argument  treats a  condition  that is sufficient 
to make something an obligation>>>for something to be an obligation, and 
it takes for granted that  any obligation to perform  an action  is a legal obligation

(E)  Wrong  : The argument  rests on an ambiguous use  of the term “action,” and 
it fails to consider  the possibility  that people are sometimes  unwilling to perform  actions 
that they have  agreed to perform  - No co-relation, no meaning

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Since anyone who makes an agreement has an obligation to fulfill the t

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Since anyone who makes an agreement has an obligation to fulfill the t

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards