Q4 - Columnist: The managers of some companies routinely don

[jgmartin82]

(B) is correct.

We’ve got a weaken question here, so we need to get to the core. It’s not the most straightforward core in the world, but fortunately we get a nice pivot word. We’re told that although the practice may seem justified, it isn’t! This is a classic LSAT argument structure. It leads with a counterpoint and contrasts that with the conclusion. So our conclusion is that these managers can’t justify donating part of their profits to charity. Indeed, how dare they!

How do we support this brave claim? Well, after all indicates we’re bringing up support for our conclusion. Apparently the managers aren’t justified because the profits belong to the owners of the company. So our core looks like this:

Profits belong to the owners --> Managers aren’t justified donating them to charity

By the way, don’t be thrown off by the last line, we’re just getting a nice clarification of the columnist’s argument. Just like we saw with Robin Hood, that stealing is stealing regardless of the motive.

Can we poke any holes in this argument? Certainly! For one, there’s a mismatch. Does not owning something mean you aren’t justified in spending it? No! In fact, the example of Robin Hood calls this mismatch out; Robin Hood is a legend, after all, and his actions are generally portrayed as justified. That’s a pretty significant gap we’ve identified, so let’s head to the answers, keeping our core strongly in mind.

A) So the profits are not only the property of the owners, but some of them are supposed to be income for the owners! Yes, the managers really are unjustified donating them. So this is our answer right? Oh wait! We’re trying to weaken our argument, not strengthen. Eliminate.

B) The managers have consent from the owners. Hmm, we didn’t predict this, but it does seem to suggest the managers aren’t quite the thieves we’ve made them out to be. Keep it.

C) This is out of scope; remember the managers aren’t justified in donating the money because it doesn’t belong to them. Donating some of their own income is nice, but it doesn’t change anything. Eliminate.

D) Way out of scope; who cares about what the charities are doing? Eliminate.

E) Same as D; we don’t care about what the charities are doing! Eliminate.

This leaves us with (B). This is not what we predicted; it doesn’t really get at the whole Robin Hood issue about whether it’s justifiable to spend what isn’t yours. Instead, it attacks the assumption that the owners played no role in the decision. It’s important to stay flexible on weaken questions. (B) was tough to predict, and it’s not atypical in that sense. But with a strong sense of the argument core, even an unexpected right answer will stand out.