Q22 - Oil company reprsentative

[perfectparadise1]

If I had taken this exam I would have raised hell with LSAC.

Why is A the right answer? So okay FINE the oil company rep can NOT have more than one motive for cleaning up. His motive is PURELY for wildlife preservation and in fact he HATES oil, is ANGRY at BP and Exxon and is going to go join an anti-pat terrorist legion to wage doom on anyone using anything fuel oriented to save the world. Hell its Ralph Nader and Bonos love child why not?

This would not make the environmentalist's argument stand at all.

So A doesn't cut it exactly. What am a I missing here?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I can see why you'd be frustrated with this one, but answer choice (A) would make the environmentalist's conclusion follow, if everything in the environmentalist's argument is true.

If the oil company admitted in a press conference that they were motivated by a desire to maintain their public image, and the oil company cannot have more than one motive for cleaning up the oil, then it would follow that the oil company was not motivated out of a concern for the environment.

There are a handful of questions in the history of the LSAT that I would dispute the accuracy of the correct answer. But, unfortunately, this one is not one of them...

(A) would prove the conclusion valid if added to the argument.
(B) does not address the motive of the oil company's efforts to clean up the oil.
(C) supports the environmentalist's conclusion, but does not prove, for it does not address the possibility that the oil company was motivated by several factors.
(D) does not address the motive of the oil company's efforts to clean up the oil.
(E) does not address the motive of the oil company's efforts to clean up the oil.

Let me know if this makes sense or not. I'm happy to talk this one through if it's still bothering you!

[perfectparadise1]

This was one of those questions where I cross off every answer choice and feel tempted to write in my own. I think making my own bubble, calling it F and circling it in would not help though.

I understand what you are saying. Since they admitted to ONE motive it makes A work. I guess that's one I'll have to live with.

I don't like the people at LSAC very much.

Thank you for the reply.

[geverett]

Hey Matt,
I was just looking over this as I'm going through the Manhattan LSAT book again. I can see your reasoning about if what the environmentalist is saying is true then answer A would allow the conclusion to follow. Also the other 4 answer choices are clearly horrible. However, I still question answer choice A b/c if they can have no more than 1 motive could not that motive just as easily be the "concern for the environment."

Also answer choice A talks about motive and I'm just not sure if we can extract from the environmentalists argument that the admission by the oil company when he/she says "photos of oil-covered otters would be damaging to your (oil co. rep.) public image, which plays a role in level of sales" can be necessarily determined to constitute a motive as much as it is perhaps a statement of fact. I feel like drawing the conclusion that it is a motive would be an assumption in itself. I'm not sure if I got my point across clearly or not. Let me know if I need to clarify anything.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Your two questions go hand in hand since, if I answer that it can be determined that they are motivated to clean the oil-covered otters for any reason other than a concern for the environment, then the answer to your first question would be "no."

I'm just not sure if we can extract from the environmentalists argument that the admission by the oil company when he/she says "photos of oil-covered otters would be damaging to your (oil co. rep.) public image ... can be necessarily determined to constitute a motiv

I would say it can. What is a motive? Here's a definition I found at dictionary.com

mo·tive"‚ "‚
[moh-tiv] Show IPA
noun, adjective, verb, -tived, -tiv·ing.
_noun
1. something that causes a person to act in a certain way, do a certain thing, etc.; incentive.

I think the last word their is critical. Doesn't the oil company have an incentive to protect it's public image?

What do you think?

[geverett]

a ha!
I have been looking up definitions to certain commonly used words during my study and have discovered that many words have a looser meaning than I originally thought. Right you are. Thanks for the explanation.

[deedubbew]

What's to say that the one motive is not a motive to help preserve the environment?

I can see why you'd be frustrated with this one, but answer choice (A) would make the environmentalist's conclusion follow, if everything in the environmentalist's argument is true.

If the oil company admitted in a press conference that they were motivated by a desire to maintain their public image, and the oil company cannot have more than one motive for cleaning up the oil, then it would follow that the oil company was not motivated out of a concern for the environment.

There are a handful of questions in the history of the LSAT that I would dispute the accuracy of the correct answer. But, unfortunately, this one is not one of them...

(A) would prove the conclusion valid if added to the argument.
(B) does not address the motive of the oil company's efforts to clean up the oil.
(C) supports the environmentalist's conclusion, but does not prove, for it does not address the possibility that the oil company was motivated by several factors.
(D) does not address the motive of the oil company's efforts to clean up the oil.
(E) does not address the motive of the oil company's efforts to clean up the oil.

Let me know if this makes sense or not. I'm happy to talk this one through if it's still bothering you!

I can see why you'd be frustrated with this one, but answer choice (A) would make the environmentalist's conclusion follow, if everything in the environmentalist's argument is true.

If the oil company admitted in a press conference that they were motivated by a desire to maintain their public image, and the oil company cannot have more than one motive for cleaning up the oil, then it would follow that the oil company was not motivated out of a concern for the environment.

There are a handful of questions in the history of the LSAT that I would dispute the accuracy of the correct answer. But, unfortunately, this one is not one of them...

(A) would prove the conclusion valid if added to the argument.
(B) does not address the motive of the oil company's efforts to clean up the oil.
(C) supports the environmentalist's conclusion, but does not prove, for it does not address the possibility that the oil company was motivated by several factors.
(D) does not address the motive of the oil company's efforts to clean up the oil.
(E) does not address the motive of the oil company's efforts to clean up the oil.

Let me know if this makes sense or not. I'm happy to talk this one through if it's still bothering you!

I can see why you'd be frustrated with this one, but answer choice (A) would make the environmentalist's conclusion follow, if everything in the environmentalist's argument is true.

If the oil company admitted in a press conference that they were motivated by a desire to maintain their public image, and the oil company cannot have more than one motive for cleaning up the oil, then it would follow that the oil company was not motivated out of a concern for the environment.

There are a handful of questions in the history of the LSAT that I would dispute the accuracy of the correct answer. But, unfortunately, this one is not one of them...

(A) would prove the conclusion valid if added to the argument.
(B) does not address the motive of the oil company's efforts to clean up the oil.
(C) supports the environmentalist's conclusion, but does not prove, for it does not address the possibility that the oil company was motivated by several factors.
(D) does not address the motive of the oil company's efforts to clean up the oil.
(E) does not address the motive of the oil company's efforts to clean up the oil.

Let me know if this makes sense or not. I'm happy to talk this one through if it's still bothering you!

[WaltGrace1983]

What's to say that the one motive is not a motive to help preserve the environment?

Let's look at the environmentalists argument. The environmentalist says this:

The company's "real concern" is the "public image."

-->

The oil company has no concern [for the environment]

Okay so the environmentalist has established the oil company's concern: it is the public image. Whether or not this concern is validated is not the point. We must accept it as true. Even if one says "well, you are making a logical jump here. We have not directly established and spelled out the motive. How can we say that public image is THE concern when it hasn't been directly stated?" Let's back up then.

The environmentalist says that the "real concern" is "evident in the admission" that "oil-covered otters would" damage the "public image [of the company]." That bolded word "evident" is probably where a lot of confusion lies. Just because something is "evident" does it mean that it is "established?" Well not exactly; I can see why this is problematic. However, we CAN absolutely say that from the environmentalists perspective there is A MOTIF that is in some ways has to do with this public image of the company. Does common sense tell us that all this evidence points to a real "concern for the environment?" I don't think so and if we say that the oil company cannot have more than one motive for cleaning the otters then we can say this motif is NOT about the "concern for the environment."

Hope that makes sense. We are so nitpicky...and i love it.

[nandy_millette]

Memorize this equation and you will be set

Premise (which we accept as true, ALWAYS) + Correct Answer Choice (i.e. The Sufficient Assumption) = VALID CONCLUSION

I eliminated Answer Choice C because IMO it was a Premise Booster, its main purpose is to persuaude me of the truth of the premise hence it cannot be the correct answer choice.

So if we Accept the Premise (which is basically that "public image/sales" is the reason for the company's course of action not "concern for the environment" as they are claiming)

+ Sufficient Assumption (i.e. you can only have one motive)

= VALID Conclusion (i.e. your real concern is self public image not concern for the environment)

HTH

[adisadeliovsky]

Man... I agree, if I took this logical reasoning section I would have flipped. A lot of the answer choices in this test just seem highly questionable

I'm having a hard time seeing how C would be incorrect?

If in the stimulus it says that the at the press conference, the oil company admitted that oil covered seals would be damaging to the brand and public image which plays an IMPORTANT roles in the levels of sales

C addresses that. "Oil companies have always shown high regard for it profits when choosing its course of action"

Well that makes sense, because the oil company makes decisions directly correlated to its sales, and photographs of oil covered seals would damage its sales, then yes if they make a decision base on its profits, then that clearly shows that the oil company had a motive in mind:

"what can I do to protect my sales and insure they do not decrease... well lets clean the otters then" ... I guess one would argue that yes they wanted to protect their sales AND help the environment, but C says they have ALWAYS shown a high regard for its profits when making a decision... thus it would lead one to conclude that decisions are mostly based on a self-serving basis.

I don't know, I really do not like this question LOL

If anyone has a rebuttal, please give it to me!! this LR section has been a killer