PT 33 Section 3 Question 17 (LR) Forum

[aegor]

The family business question.

I quickly eliminated down to B and C, with C being the correct answer. I understand completely why C is a flaw. I do not understand why B is not a flaw, and despite research on explanations of this question, I have yet to come across a compelling answer.

For example, some people stated that the answer could be eliminated based on the "family business" or "business" word shift, but this is obviously inaccurate if family businesses do indeed pay the lowest wages.

Still other explanations stated nebulously that B was wrong because it "kind of discusses the premises" or some such nonsense. Nevertheless, the connection between the premises is the argument is absolutely assailable and B cannot be dismissed on those grounds.

Which leads me to what I think must be the error: that, somehow, the stimulus does not state that family businesses pay the lowest wages. My problem while taking the test is that I was unable to justify to myself how this is not the case. The argument says that FB pay exceptionally low wages --> operating expenses are much lower than for other business --> higher profits. Some of the bad explanations I read stated that "lower expenses" is not the same as "lowest expenses," but this is dumb, because the stimulus makes it unequivocally clear that family businesses have the lowest expenses of any business (by virtue of stating that they have the lower expenses out of two exhaustive categories of business).

In turn, this leads me to the conclusion that the error must lie in the word shift from "exceptionally low" to "lowest," but even this is iffy.


Any insight appreciated.

[Clyde Frog]

The family business question.

I quickly eliminated down to B and C, with C being the correct answer. I understand completely why C is a flaw. I do not understand why B is not a flaw, and despite research on explanations of this question, I have yet to come across a compelling answer.

For example, some people stated that the answer could be eliminated based on the "family business" or "business" word shift, but this is obviously inaccurate if family businesses do indeed pay the lowest wages.

Still other explanations stated nebulously that B was wrong because it "kind of discusses the premises" or some such nonsense. Nevertheless, the connection between the premises is the argument is absolutely assailable and B cannot be dismissed on those grounds.

Which leads me to what I think must be the error: that, somehow, the stimulus does not state that family businesses pay the lowest wages. My problem while taking the test is that I was unable to justify to myself how this is not the case. The argument says that FB pay exceptionally low wages --> operating expenses are much lower than for other business --> higher profits. Some of the bad explanations I read stated that "lower expenses" is not the same as "lowest expenses," but this is dumb, because the stimulus makes it unequivocally clear that family businesses have the lowest expenses of any business (by virtue of stating that they have the lower expenses out of two exhaustive categories of business).

In turn, this leads me to the conclusion that the error must lie in the word shift from "exceptionally low" to "lowest," but even this is iffy.


Any insight appreciated.

This was the only flaw question I missed from PTs 21-40. Still remember picking apart the argument for hours and freaking out.

[Nulli Secundus]

It's been a while since I studied for the LSAT so I may have forgotten some of the jargon used in explaining this stuff to others but,

B seems out of scope -> The issue is not which companies have the "highest" profits, the issue is whether being a family owned business increase the prosperity of the owning family. The argument states being a family owned company leads to "higher" profits, not necessarily the "highest" profits. Thought that could be what you were looking for.

[Christine (MLSAT)]

The family business question.
In turn, this leads me to the conclusion that the error must lie in the word shift from "exceptionally low" to "lowest," but even this is iffy.

Any insight appreciated.

This is this primary issue, right here.

(B) accuses the author of assuming that lowest wages --> lowest op. exp. --> highest profits. But the author never uses this kind of superlative language. He merely claims that a family business can have "exceptionally low wages", and thus their general op. exp. are "much lower" and profits "higher" than for other businesses.

Switching between comparative language "higher/lower than" and superlative language "the highest/lowest" is a common trick of the LSAT, and one you should always be on your guard for. It shows up on a regular basis. (B) would absolutely be a flaw if the author had assumed such a thing, but the author doesn't.

I can't be certain, but what you may have seen in regards to 'discusses premises' is something like this: I'm not convinced that "low wages --> lower op. exp --> higher profits" is an argument core. It seems to be simply a description of events. "John went dancing last Friday, and hence, was tired on Saturday morning" isn't an argument, it's just a timeline. I'm explaining that the second thing was a result of the first thing, but it's not a conclusion that I'm drawing, it's a fact that I'm informing you of. The same thing is going on here. The *conclusion* of the argument is the final sentence, supported by the premise "low wages --> lower op. exp. --> higher profits".

Now, I would never be comfortable eliminating an answer solely on this basis, so the comparative-superlative issue is critical. However, in terms of simplifying that argument, I think it's important to realize that that whole chain of events is really all premise (description of how family businesses operate), with no substantial gaps in reasoning.