Here are the sentences in the argument coupled with a general/high level logical restatement of each:
There are circumstances in which it is not immoral to make certain threats -> There are circumstances in which it is not A to do X. -> There are circumstances in which doing X is not A.
There are circumstances in which it is not immoral to ask for a job or money -> There are circumstances in which it is not A to do Y -> There are circumstances in which doing Y is not A.
Therefore there are circumstances in which it is not immoral to ask for a job/money while making threats -> Therefore there are circumstances in which doing X & Y simultaneously is not A.
We have three distinct ideas here, and there is also a flaw in this argument (extra points if you spotted it!). This is a common flaw the LSAT uses in what are in fact set membership questions. Here, we are talking about the set of things that are not inappropriate (i.e. appropriate). Some points within this set include X and some include Y, but that doesn’t mean that X and Y necessarily overlap at all (draw yourself a Venn diagram for this argument, and you’ll see what I mean).
With all this in mind, let’s look for an argument. We need to be sure to pick one that reproduces the flaw above.
(A) This one is a tough one. You probably have a sense after reading it that something is a little off, even if there is the right number of groups. Now that I’ve confirmed your sense that something is wrong, I’ll ask you to think about it and try to formalize it before reading on (it’s discussed a bit later in this posting). On a real LSAT, I wouldn’t be thrilled with this, but I probably wouldn’t get rid of right away either because it does seem to have some of the same elements as the original argument.
(B) This argument is just silly _ it’s an entirely different logic structure from what we’re doing here. This is an if-then sort of construction, whereas we’re interested in subsets of groups.
(C) This looks like a pretty attractive answer. It has the right number of groups. Also, it has the same flaw we have above _ assuming things can be or will be combined just because two things match with the same situation or label.
(D) This has too many ideas _ it is not even a contender.
(E) This has the same problem as (B) in being an if-then sort of construction rather than a construction about subgroups.
So if there were the real LSAT, and liking (C) so much, I’d go with that without articulating to myself exactly what the problem with (A) is. Luckily, we’ve got plenty of time just now, so let’s think for a second about what’s going on with A. Let me spell out the logic a bit:
It says in business settings, casual clothing can be appropriate: So in B, X can be A.
It also says in some social settings, casual clothing can be appropriate. So in S, X can be A.
Now you have probably already seen one problem with this argument. It has four groups, not two!
There is an additional problem with the logic too that is different from the one in the original argument. Kudos to whoever spots it first and posts here
