PT 54, section 4, #22 (LR)

Mr. Berns
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 8:57 pm

PT 54, section 4, #22 (LR)

Postby Mr. Berns » Wed Sep 15, 2010 2:01 am

This one is about businesses having compelling reasons to act in a morally preferable way. I'm really having trouble parsing this argument. It certainly seems to revolve around conditional logic, but I'm quite lost as to how. Ideas? Thanks!

User avatar
matt@atlaslsat
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 2:34 pm

Re: PT 54, section 4, #22 (LR)

Postby matt@atlaslsat » Wed Sep 15, 2010 4:34 am

Yeah, it's tough boil this one down.

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.

Does that clear this one up?

Mr. Berns
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 8:57 pm

Re: PT 54, section 4, #22 (LR)

Postby Mr. Berns » Thu Sep 16, 2010 2:32 am

It does. It may take some more marination in my brain to become crystal clear, but thanks for the thorough explanation!




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: JoshLyman13 and 8 guests