Q25 - We are in a new

[peg_city]

Was able to narrow it down between C and E, however I picked C.

Why is C wrong and E right?

Thanks Again

[giladedelman]

Thanks for your question.

Here's a good example of how important it is to wade through all the junk and identify the core:

new era requires "action learning"
+
business schools unable to provide it; too academic

----> business schools should let business executives provide curriculum to academics

So, where's the gap? Well, it's established that business schools aren't getting the job done when it comes to giving students real-life, "action learning." But the big assumption is that business executives can provide the proper training. If not, then it makes no sense to bring them in to set the curriculum.

(E) is correct because it identifies this necessary assumption. The argument assumes that business executives know some valuable, real-world stuff that business academics don't know.

(A) is incorrect because we don't have to assume that academics have no valuable experience; the problem is just that they don't have enough.

(B) is incorrect because, like (A), it's too extreme: we don't need to assume that they only deal with hypotheticals; we already know they do this "too often."

(C) is incorrect because it's actually the opposite of what the argument assumes. Notice that the conclusion calls for business executives to provide curriculum "that could then be taught by academics." So the argument actually assumes that academics are capable of teaching suitable material. This answer would actually hurt the argument.

(D) is incorrect because it's out of scope: the argument doesn't touch on academic training outside of business schools.

Does that answer your question?

[griffin.811]

Is E really necessary?

What if the teachers have the same valuable insight, but just choose not to act on it? Perhaps they picked up insights from academia that they believe to be more valuable?

I do agree E is the best choice, just curious.

I actually eliminated C for this same reason: Maybe the academics are capable of teaching a certain way, and just choose not not to do so.

Thanks

[ohthatpatrick]

Yeah, I feel ya.

Really, if they were being super careful with the wording, (E) would read something more like:
"Allowing business executives to set curricula for management trainees would increase the likelihood of the trainees developing 'action learning' / studying real cases or increase the likelihood that a business school would respond to the needs of business".

No matter what, "business executives" (the 'NEW GUY' in the conclusion) somehow needs to be explained in our correct answer: how the heck do THEY relate to addressing the problem described?

Notice, though, by your explanation that you kinda made a case for (E). You were saying that maybe the academics already possess the same insights; they're just not willing or choosing to share them. That would work AGAINST the conclusion, in the sense that we could say "You don't need to bring in business execs; you just need to encourage/force your academic teachers to share their valuable insights."

We only need to resort to getting business execs if they bring something new to the table.

But I agree, it doesn't NECESSARILY have to be "unique insight" that they bring ... it could just be "willingness to share that insight".

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good ... i.e. despite the fact that many LSAT questions are written in an airtight fashion, don't go nuts if you have to pick a 'best' answer that isn't as rock solid as other correct answers you've seen in the past.

[esthertan0310]

The conclusion discusses the business executives, not the academics or the academic training.