Q22 - The short-term interests

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

The conclusion is that businesses have a compelling reason to execute the morally preferable act.

The evidence for this is that the morally preferable act is usually the one that serves the long-term interests.

The assumption here is that businesses have a compelling reason to execute their long-term interests.

I wouldn't recommend resorting to conditional logic on this one, although I am a strong advocate for it's use on the LSAT in general. This is also a question type (sufficient assumption) that generally tests our ability to piece together complex conditional relationships.

If you wanted to see this one using conditional logic, it would like the following:

LT ---> MP
----------
MP some CR

Assumption would be

LT some CR

(Notation Key: LT = long term interests, MP = morally preferable act, CR = compelling reasons)

Clearly the assumption is almost perfectly expressed in answer choice (B).

(A) undermines the conclusion rather than supports it.
(C) isn't even necessary, but close. It does need to be true that they don't "always" conflict, but not necessary that they seldom conflict. This still wouldn't ensure that there were compelling reasons to engage in the morally preferable act.
(D) is a play on answer choice (C) but still wouldn't ensure that there were compelling reasons to engage in the morally preferable act.
(E) is irrelevant to the argument. Whether morality is an overriding consideration is irrelevant to whether it is a consideration in the first place.


#officialexplanation

[Jasonzhang]

The conclusion is that businesses have a compelling reason to execute the morally preferable act.

The evidence for this is that the morally preferable act is usually the one that serves the long-term interests.

The assumption here is that businesses have a compelling reason to execute their long-term interests.

I wouldn't recommend resorting to conditional logic on this one, although I am a strong advocate for it's use on the LSAT in general. This is also a question type (sufficient assumption) that generally tests our ability to piece together complex conditional relationships.

If you wanted to see this one using conditional logic, it would like the following:

LT ---> MP
----------
MP some CR

Assumption would be

LT some CR

(Notation Key: LT = long term interests, MP = morally preferable act, CR = compelling reasons)

Clearly the assumption is almost perfectly expressed in answer choice (B).

(A) undermines the conclusion rather than supports it.
(C) isn't even necessary, but close. It does need to be true that they don't "always" conflict, but not necessary that they seldom conflict. This still wouldn't ensure that there were compelling reasons to engage in the morally preferable act.
(D) is a play on answer choice (C) but still wouldn't ensure that there were compelling reasons to engage in the morally preferable act.
(E) is irrelevant to the argument. Whether morality is an overriding consideration is irrelevant to whether it is a consideration in the first place.

I was just wondering if "the MP is usually the one that LT" would be translated in to MP---->LT rather than LT---->MP?

[Puffy Pants]

The conclusion is that businesses have a compelling reason to execute the morally preferable act.

The evidence for this is that the morally preferable act is usually the one that serves the long-term interests.

The assumption here is that businesses have a compelling reason to execute their long-term interests.

I wouldn't recommend resorting to conditional logic on this one, although I am a strong advocate for it's use on the LSAT in general. This is also a question type (sufficient assumption) that generally tests our ability to piece together complex conditional relationships.

If you wanted to see this one using conditional logic, it would like the following:

LT ---> MP
----------
MP some CR

Assumption would be

LT some CR

(Notation Key: LT = long term interests, MP = morally preferable act, CR = compelling reasons)

Clearly the assumption is almost perfectly expressed in answer choice (B).

(A) undermines the conclusion rather than supports it.
(C) isn't even necessary, but close. It does need to be true that they don't "always" conflict, but not necessary that they seldom conflict. This still wouldn't ensure that there were compelling reasons to engage in the morally preferable act.
(D) is a play on answer choice (C) but still wouldn't ensure that there were compelling reasons to engage in the morally preferable act.
(E) is irrelevant to the argument. Whether morality is an overriding consideration is irrelevant to whether it is a consideration in the first place.

I was just wondering if "the MP is usually the one that LT" would be translated in to MP---->LT rather than LT---->MP?

When I read it, it stood out to me that what gave the Compelling Reasons was not the Morally Preferable act, BUT the Lenght of time. Long Term seemed to give Compelling reasons for the usually Morally Preferable act to be chosen over the short term. (LT some CR)

At the end they did not say "they do the long term act" which to me seemed to hint that the *this* they were referring to was the *lenght* (long/short) goal that gave the business their compelling reasons. So LT some CR.

As you mentioned With MP----> LT as opposed to LT--- MP it would be:

MP ----> LT
LT some CR

-----------------

MP some CR


Morally Preferable reasons are usually Long term, long term has some compelling reasons = Morally preferable acts have some compelling reasons. Which sounds right, but short term acts could fall here too... so it would not make them different from long term to be chosen more often.


I got the question right, but I am not sure if my thinking is correct. I hope it helps someone though ! :/

[mitrakhanom1]

my confusion was with the semicolon. i thought what followed "the morally preferable act is usually the one that serves the long term interest." and the "businesses often have compelling reasons.." was the premise. how could i have prevented this from happening? I also wanted to know is "because of this" a conclusion indicator? When I look at it now I feel i could have used the therefore test to figured out the conclusion but was feeling rushed and thought with my gut. But the question type is sufficent assumption and sometimes the answer is half the premise and half the conclusion. I should have seen it coming. I picked answer choice D. Why is D wrong?

[ohthatpatrick]

"Because of this" is indeed a Conclusion trigger. We have to know our Premise / Conclusion trigger words for many Sufficient Assumption questions, because sometimes those are the only/best way to identify where the Conclusion is.

If I say "Because X, Y", then Y was my Conclusion.

Similarly, if I say "Y, because X", then Y was my Conclusion.

Conclusions are supported by other ideas. Premises provide support.

When we say "Because of X, Y", then Y is my Conclusion. It is supported by X.

When this argument said "Because of this, ____" that tells us that "this" = premise and "_____" = conclusion.

Once we identify the last sentence as the Conclusion, we should look at any new terms/ideas in the Conclusion that would NEED to be in a correct answer in order to prove the wording in the Conclusion.

Here, I see "compelling reasons to execute" is new.

Any answer without that language is useless.

Eliminate (C), (D), and (E). Let me know if you don't understand that rationale, in regards to Sufficient Assumption questions.

As to the previous poster's comment/question, I agree that you would be more likely to represent "the morally preferable is usually long term" as MP --> LT.

But since it's "usually", I wouldn't represent it conditionally at all.

[mitrakhanom1]

Thanks Patrick. I went back to look at my list of premise cues and conclusion cues and I was alarmed that "because of this" wasn't in my conclusion cues. For premise cues I have: since, because, after all, for, and the reason is. For the conclusion cues I have: so, clearly, thus, as a result, therefore, for this reason, consequently, they conclude that, and this demonstrates that. I know its not an exhaustive list, but I just wanted to know what I should do. Is it just with more practice that I will spot additional terms that work as premise/conclusion indicators because I didn't see "because of this" the first time around as a conclusion indicator. Thanks.

[BarryM800]

How do we analyze and diagram "the morally preferable act is usually the one that serves the long-term interest"? Or in a simplified version: "A is usually the one that does B." Thanks!

[Misti Duvall]

How do we analyze and diagram "the morally preferable act is usually the one that serves the long-term interest"? Or in a simplified version: "A is usually the one that does B." Thanks!

Hmm, it's not a conditional statement, so I wouldn't diagram it. I also don't usually use A/B/C or X/YZ, cause it can get confusing. This is probably easiest just summarized. If you want to save time on test day, you can also underline/highlight the conclusion.