Q17 - In a business whose owners

[mymansupa]

Ok... (C) is the correct answer BUT don't we as the reader have to assume a causal link, because the reduction of family prosperity WILL result in a loss in financial prosperity??? I mean looking at the all the answers again (because I chose (B) BUT obviously (B) is talking about businesses in general not family businesses) I can see (C) being the best choice but I just need to clarify if we have to make an assumption... Thanks

[bbirdwell]

I see what you're saying, and, in a way, you are right. It's an assumption, sure. But it's a teeny, tiny assumption due to the context of the argument. The discussion is about wages, expenses, profits, and financial prosperity. To say "prosperity" without the "financial" is a reasonably concise way of saying the same thing.

[willaminic]

Hey there.

I chose D on this one for some reason, can anyone explain why it is wrong....for C, i just think it requires a lot of assumptions about the "family prosperity."

As for B and E does not refer to family business, thus wrong, am i right? Thank you.

[bbirdwell]

Here's the argument:

1. in family biz, can pay low wages
2. b/c of this, operating expenses are lower
3. b/c of this, profits are higher

Therefore:
family biz is surest road to financial prosperity

The first thing I notice is the extreme nature of the conclusion. Just because, in a family business, profits can be higher than in a non-family business, does this justify the claim that family business is the SUREST ROAD to financial prosperity?

Absolutely not. No evidence or comparison whatsoever is made to any other potential means of gaining prosperity. At a glance, this is the argument's biggest problem.

It seems to say this: family biz make more profit than non-family biz. Therefore, family biz is BEST way for families to prosper.

With that gap in mind, I go to the choices.

(A) who cares! Ignoring this fact is not a flaw. We can check this by considering that fact and seeing if the argument falls apart. What if it's true? "Some businesses can pay high wages and be profitable." Does this destroy the claim that a family biz is the BEST way for a family to become prosperous? Nope. Eliminate.

(B) Nope. This argument does not require (B) in order to function. LOWEST wages does not have to = LOWEST expenses = HIGHEST profits. family has LOWER wages than non-family = LOWER expenses than non-family = HIGHER profits than non-family is all the argument needs.

(C) hmmm. Now, anytime a flaw choice says "ignores the fact," all we have to to is consider that fact. If, in considering that fact, the argument is severely damaged or destroyed, we have our answer. Here, if we consider the fact that paying lower wages REDUCES prosperity, suddenly the conclusion loses support. Our conclusion says this is the BEST way to prosperity. If low wages REDUCE prosperity, it's much less likely that low wages are the BEST road to prosperity, isn't it? Keep it.

(D) is a pretty good choice at first "presumes that family members are willing to work for low wages." If it stopped there, it'd be good. However, it goes too far. While we do need to assume that family members will ACTUALLY WORK for low wages, we don't have to assume ANYTHING about their motivation (the desire to increase prosperity). Doesn't matter WHY they work for low wages. Thus, (D) is incorrect.

(E) is incorrect because the argument does not need this to be true in order to function. Even if businesses with high expenses succeed, the conclusion remains: the BEST way to prosperity for families is through a family business.

[LSAT-Chang]

I chose (C) for this but I want to discuss why it is necessarily a flaw in the argument..

The core I had was:

family business --> employees can be paid exceptionally low wages --> general operating expenses much lower than they would be for other business --> higher profits

therefore

family business is a family's surest road to financial prosperity

I honestly wasn't able to see anything "super" wrong with this argument -- I thought it was pretty valid, although I had an issue with the conclusion of "family business being the surest road to financial prosperity". There could definitely be other superior ways to financial prosperity for a family.

So I went to the answer choices, and eliminated the other 4 and was left with (C). But when I read (C), I didn't understand how "paying family members low wages may itself reduce the family's prosperity". I couldn't think of a situation where this could be possible since the premises given tells us that these family members are paid low and so general operating expenses are low and thus would have higher profits than other businesses.

OR is (C) correct because we don't know of the actual family's "prosperity"? Like the argument just says that family business would have higher profits than OTHER business ventures, but it may be the case that a particular family is really poor and the business isn't running so well, and so even the minimum dollar paid to the family members is reducing the family's prosperity? Is that possible? I just can't seem to get this situation around my head.

[timmydoeslsat]

Yeah this argument has a lot of things wrong with it.

I agree that a big flaw upfront in this argument is the conclusion of a family business being a family's surest road to financial prosperity.

Perhaps it is playing the lottery every week. Perhaps it is marrying celebrities that have tons of money. These possibilities were not addressed, so we cannot conclude that this is the surest way.

The other issue is that the conclusion is about the family's road to prosperity being very sure when the premises supporting this claim are inherently suspect. "Paid exceptionally low wages" comes to mind.

Couldn't it be true that the family members that are being paid really low wages could, instead, acquire different jobs outside of the company, and be paid a lot more? This could challenge the notion of the argument's version of the surest road to prosperity.

[LSAT-Chang]

I definitely see your point about the author's conclusion being flawed. However, could you help me understand the answer choice (C) in itself?

When I read (C), I didn't understand how "paying family members low wages may itself reduce the family's prosperity". I couldn't think of a situation where this could be possible since the premises given tells us that these family members are paid low and so general operating expenses are low and thus would have higher profits than other businesses. How would paying family members low wages ITSELF reduce the family's prosperity?

OR is (C) correct because we don't know of the actual family's "prosperity"? Like the argument just says that family business would have higher profits than OTHER business ventures, but it may be the case that a particular family is really poor and the business isn't running so well, and so even the minimum dollar paid to the family members is reducing the family's prosperity? Is that possible? I just can't seem to get this situation around my head.

[timmydoeslsat]

By the stimulus using the word "prosperity" we can infer that the conclusion is implying that this certain way (a family business) is the surest way to financial well-being.

We know the flaw is in the conclusion that is reached.

Choice C is addressing that it may be the case that paying these exceptionally low wages will reduce the family's prosperity.

We cannot infer anything about where a particular family is financially. We only care about what is the surest path there.

The evidence given is that this certain type of business has the highest profits versus another type of business.

It may be the case that business is not the surest road to prosperity. Maybe it is studying the behavior of stocks.

[LSAT-Chang]

Choice C is addressing that it may be the case that paying these exceptionally low wages will reduce the family's prosperity.

I think I get it.. one last question!
So answer choice (C) is giving us a possible situation where a family business is NOT a family's surest road to financial prosperity.??

[timmydoeslsat]

Choice C is addressing that it may be the case that paying these exceptionally low wages will reduce the family's prosperity.

I think I get it.. one last question!
So answer choice (C) is giving us a possible situation where a family business is NOT a family's surest road to financial prosperity.??

Ask all the questions you want!

Answer (C) is simply showing that the argument is flawed because it doesn't realize that the simple fact alone of exceptionally low wages for the family members may in fact reduce financial prosperity, which would damper the conclusion of it being the surest way to financial prosperity.

[LSAT-Chang]

Thank you timmydoeslsat!!!

[irene122]

I narrow down to C by POE but hesitate as the "family prosperity" seems like a scope shift from "financial prosperity" in the stimulus?

Could any one plesae point out what I missed?

Thanks a lot!

[porsupuesto3798]

A very nice discussion. I also got confused by C, but I now realize why C is the correct answer.
The stimulus is like this
In a business employee be paid low wages --> operating expenses lower --> profit higher --> Conclusion: Family business is the surest way to financial prosperity.

I also at first ask myself how could C be possible? Doesn't the premise say that family business is the best mode of making money compared to other business ventures, because the operating cost is lower and the profit is higher.

At first glance, it appeared to be true that C could never be correct.
However, BE CAREFUL OF WHAT THE STIMULUS REALLY IS!
In a business, family business is the best way, it doesn't necessarily mean that family business is the best shot in financial world.
Financial world is much bigger than business world, so a family business is very likely to be the surest way to BUSINESS PROSPERITY, but not necessarily FINANCIAL PROSPERITY NOR FAMILY PROSPERITY.

So there could be other ways to reach family prosperity than family business.
To process of family business may in fact reduce Family prosperity though according to the stimulus, it is not likely to reduce business prosperity.

Thus (C) is correct! The problem lies in the difference between business prosperity and financial prosperity. The conclusion use one thing that fits in one field to conclude that it could fit a bigger field, which is over generalization.

[tobyna]

Could someone please explain why B is wrong? I was stuck between B and C; I ultimately chose B because I'm skeptical of the connection between low wages and high profits...what if it's a bad business idea to begin with, so there is no profit!?

Thank you!

[josh.glenn44]

I think there is an easier way to look at how answer choice C gets after one of the flaws in this argument.

Follow me through the premises:

(and think of the family business as ma, pa, and their three adult kids helping them....prosperity being equal to their net wealth combined as a family unit)...this feels like a stretch to do...but its ok! it doesnt violate anything in the stimulus

Premise 1: In a business whose owners and employees all belong to one family, the employees can be paid exceptionally low wages.

Int-Conclusion: Hence, general operating expenses are much lower than they would be for other business ventures, making profits higher.

****The assumption in this sentence is the key for understanding why answer choice C is correct:

these business ventures that the family can set out on being that they are able to pay lower wages and having more money to spend DOESN'T MEAN that the profits from them are going to make up for the money that could have been paid out in wages.

These business ventures might fail!! If they fail, the prosperity (net worth of the family as a whole) is going to be lower than it otherwise could have been. If they had paid out the higher wages in such a circumstance, maybe there would still be more money in the family.

I think overall this problem is tricky because the flaw in the conclusion is so easy to spot and the flaw in the intermediate conclusion is harder to notice

[rgrijalb]

When I looked at this Q I first thought like the previous post, thinking of the net wealth of the family = family prosperity, where I was not so happy with Choice C was here: say I pay my two children lower wages, hence I should get higher profits because my expenses are lower compared to an equally successful business who pays two employees higher wages, but since my profits are higher, I being the father of these kids am incurring the benefits of the higher profits, and since I am part of the family, our family prosperity would be equal to the family prosperity I could expect had I paid my children higher wages which would lower my profits, but in the end the childrens higher wages would simply contribute back into the family total prosperity; in essence these two hypotheticals simply demonstrate a shift in money among the family itself, but in the end, the family prosperity is the same in both situations(ASSUME CHILDREN AND FATHER DO NOT SPEND $ AND SIMPLY SAVE ALL MONEY EARNED). I choose C but I must say it seems that the reduction in family prosperity as (C) describes would not really occur given the two hypothetical situations I just described, if anything it would be better had it said : ignores the fact that paying lower wages would simply cause a shift in money among the family prosperity compared to a family that had paid higher wages, hence family prosperity would be the same.

did anyone see this question like this? help much appreciated thanks!

[WaltGrace1983]

Everyone here is assuming that the family actually takes their profits.

In a business, it is not like there is COST and then the PROFITS and all the profits are distributed to the employees/owners/etc. Businesses can take those profits and stash them away to further invest in the company. The point here is that if you are paid low wages and the business is actually stashing the profits then this would definitely question the family's prosperity.

(A) is out of scope...customer satisfaction?
(B) doesn't attack the gap. It just kind of discusses the premises.
(D) We don't care about their motivations.
(E) The argument never assumes this! It is just saying that this is one way to succeed. This is saying "success → low expenses" while the argument is more saying that "low expenses → success." However, we are also assuming that "success" is synonymous with "prosperity." It may not be.

Look at how beautifully (C) ties together this argument. It ties the premises to the conclusion while saying that, if we accept the premises, we could be able to not get the conclusion. This is our job in a flaw question.

[Mab6q]

This may be a silly question, but do we take the subsidiary conclusion to be true here.

Because of the low pay, operating expenses are lower --> profits are higher.

I feel like this argument has its flaws as well. It could be that because you they are getting paid less, they have terrible service and that doesn't translate to profits.

Are we always supposed to take the subsidiary conclusion to be true?

[maryadkins]

Great question.

I would say yes. Take subsidiary conclusions as true, because you want to take everything as true that is not the main conclusion. Now, this isn't to say you take any gaps between the premises and subsidiary conclusion(s) as true. But in this case, "Hence, general operating expenses are much lower than they would be for other business ventures, making profits higher" covers a whole bunch of potential gaps. It covers causation, it covers comparative advantage...it's pretty clear! So you don't question that stuff. Which means you'll have to look for problems elsewhere, i.e. between the subsidiary conclusion and the main conclusion.

Thanks for your good questions lately!

[letslsat]

I still don't get it. I eliminated (C) because I thought it was too far-fetched to equate "financial prosperity" to "family prosperity." Even so, how exactly would paying family members low wages lead to reduction of family prosperity? If anything, wouldn't their
"financial prosperity" stay the same because the money is staying in the family?

EDIT: Can I make the assumption that the family members left their high paying jobs at another business to work for the family business, which in turn led to a decrease in the family's prosperity, because they used to make way more money?