PT11 Section 2 #21

bkred
Posts: 27
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 1:44 am

PT11 Section 2 #21

Postby bkred » Wed Sep 01, 2010 9:43 pm

The report's authors' position is that they must receive government funding, which requires a reputation for competence. So they're saying they have to carry on like this for the time being. What would weaken this position?
The correct answer is (B), which says they will continue to have problems because of their lack of a coherent vision. But the authors already countered this in the stimulus: even if the serious problems continue, they still feel that government funding is a more important issue in the short term, so they'll live with the problems. I don't see how (B) adds anything new. (E), however, suggests that their reputation is getting worse, which means the required condition for receiving government funding won't be met. Which suggests that they better think of a new plan. Doesn't that attack the authors' position much better?

Thank you.

User avatar
lennonist
Posts: 164
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 9:38 pm

Re: PT11 Section 2 #21

Postby lennonist » Wed Sep 01, 2010 10:26 pm

bkred wrote:The report's authors' position is that they must receive government funding, which requires a reputation for competence. So they're saying they have to carry on like this for the time being. What would weaken this position?
The correct answer is (B), which says they will continue to have problems because of their lack of a coherent vision. But the authors already countered this in the stimulus: even if the serious problems continue, they still feel that government funding is a more important issue in the short term, so they'll live with the problems. I don't see how (B) adds anything new. (E), however, suggests that their reputation is getting worse, which means the required condition for receiving government funding won't be met. Which suggests that they better think of a new plan. Doesn't that attack the authors' position much better?

Thank you.


So, the critics = vision (un-pragmatic), while the authors = funding/reputation for competence (pragmatic)

Answer choice (B) works best because it reinforces the critics' position of vision (true, not new info for us) as a counter to the authors' pragmaticism. (E) is not really relevant to the critics' position because it touches the issue of competence and who deserves what.

Sorry for a sucky explanation, about to leave the house...




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: addie1412, dietcoke1 and 10 guests