Top Law Schools

21. (was between B and D here)

A. wrong because it doesn't perform the act to benefit those people but only themselves. This is clear in the sentence that they performed the action because it would hurt their chances at being re-elected.

B. I am picking this answer over D because firstly, it tells us the outcome, it states the exact reason WHY the government performed the action; to help benefit those who do not have to wait in line. This is the direct reason for WHY they implement the proposed procedure. As for the conclusion of this, I hestitated a bit initially because it says the procedure failed. However, in the principle it stated that they will GENERALLY succeed in helping them - so it may not always work out.

C. Betsy performed this act in order to keep the furnace running efficiently, not directly for the benefit of someone else. If it said she learned this and then performed this action in order to benefit her daughter it would be a better contender.

D. The reason I am eliminating D is for two reasons. Firstly, I am honestly not really sure if learning something in psychology class counts as having evidence or not. If it does, then ill defer to my second reason for eliminating this. This does not show the outcome of the action, although I am not really sure if it has to in this case. It says that an action takes place, and shows no result. The stimulus states they are GENERALLY successful, so not necessarily. it also doesnèt tell us exactly why she confronted bob

E. Says here that Zachary hoped, which is not the same as having concrete evidence, such as the principle needs.

So I botched this question. The right answer is (C) , can someone please help point out the reasons my reasons for elminating and keeping the reasons are right / wrong? It is much appreciated.

The credited response for this question will conform to the principle given in the stim. The stim has three conditions, two sufficient and one necessary.

Evidence that an act will benefit + Perform act to benefit other people -> Generally succeed in benefiting people

(A) Politicians acted out of self interest
(B) Procedure failed. Also, since bureaucratic procedures typically fail, it is not clear that the government had evidence the act would benefit others
(C) Betsy knew she would help her daughter out by fixing her furnace. It is also reasonable to assume that Betsy fixed the furnace with the intent of benefiting her daughter. This concludes by saying Betsy actually helped her daughter. Perfectly conforms to the principle given in the stim.
(D) Both sufficient conditions met, unclear if necessary condition is met
(E) No evidence Zachary's action would help his parents.

HTH

I was actually hoping you could read my reasoning and say NO this is wrong because "x" reason. I think I understand why the answer is right / wrong now though

flash21 wrote:2A. wrong because it doesn't perform the act to benefit those people but only themselves. This is clear in the sentence that they performed the action because it would hurt their chances at being re-elected.

Right.

B. I am picking this answer over D because firstly, it tells us the outcome, it states the exact reason WHY the government performed the action; to help benefit those who do not have to wait in line. This is the direct reason for WHY they implement the proposed procedure. As for the conclusion of this, I hestitated a bit initially because it says the procedure failed. However, in the principle it stated that they will GENERALLY succeed in helping them - so it may not always work out.

Wrong, as you know. The problem with this one is that it says that it failed, "as with most bureaucratic procedures". My stimulus said that it generally succeeds - I need to know that this failure is in the minority of similar situation for it to conform to the stimulus. This tells me (nearly) the opposite.

C. Betsy performed this act in order to keep the furnace running efficiently, not directly for the benefit of someone else. If it said she learned this and then performed this action in order to benefit her daughter it would be a better contender.

You went wrong in thinking that Betsy would benefit from replacing the furnace filter. It says that she replaces at her daughter's house, not her own.

D. The reason I am eliminating D is for two reasons. Firstly, I am honestly not really sure if learning something in psychology class counts as having evidence or not. If it does, then ill defer to my second reason for eliminating this. This does not show the outcome of the action, although I am not really sure if it has to in this case. It says that an action takes place, and shows no result. The stimulus states they are GENERALLY successful, so not necessarily. it also doesnèt tell us exactly why she confronted bob

That would count as evidence. The reason is that it doesn't show the outcome, which is your second reason for throwing it out.

E. Says here that Zachary hoped, which is not the same as having concrete evidence, such as the principle needs.

Bingo.

thanks shinners.

I think my issue on LR sometimes is that I get scared to make assumptions because I am always paranoid they may not be warranted. I think thats what messed me up with the Betsy question.