PT 44, section 4, Q 20/11

Prepare for the LSAT or discuss it with others in this forum.

Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 11:52 pm

PT 44, section 4, Q 20/11

Postby February1088 » Wed Apr 20, 2011 8:59 pm

For question 11, i fail to see how answer is A. I picked D. A talks about corruption outside of staff, which seems unnecessary

For Q20, the passage just says the winners 'recognized', which does not have to mean what answer D says.

Im confused, please help! Thanks in advance!

User avatar

Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 5:50 pm

Re: PT 44, section 4, Q 20/11

Postby 510Chicken » Thu Apr 21, 2011 3:21 am

(A) is correct because if the corruption is limited only to the staff, then the board directors themselves might not be corrupt and wouldn't need to be replaced, as long as they fired the secretaries or w/e.
(D) isn't really that damning because it does not necessarily exculpate the board members. "All" are not required to be corrupt. "Many" could suffice.

(A) Irrelevant. It doesn't necessarily mean that the plan from the past 25 years would be bad.
(B) Same argument. The ad just says that the Acme plan would be good, not that other plans wouldn't be good (enough) too.
(C) The experts didn't endorse it.
(D) Correct! The ad is based on the premise that if top economists who know what they're doing chose the plan, it must be good for people like them. If the winners did not choose the plan, however, then all of them having it doesn't necessarily say anything about what they thought about it (they did not have to "recognize" anything"). The fact that they all have the Acme plan could be coincidental.
(E) No it doesn't. It just says that if you have the same retirement needs as the winners do, you should consider the Acme plan.

Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum�

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 5 guests