"Work[ing] to maximize profits" and "[making] decisions that are based primarily on maximizing profits" are two completely different things to me...that's why B doesn't make sense in my head.
A is a trick answer if you don't slow down and read the question stem. We are asked about the economist. The economists claims, "CEO's sole responsibility is to the owners, whose primary interest, EXCEPT IN CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS, is the protection of their profits.".
He goes on to say CEOs are bound to seek profits for owners. This claim still only refers to institutions which are not charitable institutions.
This is all we learn about the economists take on charitable organizations. Everything else we learn is in reference to noncharitable organizations.
For further understanding - in the same paragraph where A is shown to be wrong in the explanation, it doesn't explain the part of the paragraph saying "even if such a CEO's purpose is to look at the public good and nothing else, they should still work to maximize profits" and in the sentence before that it is indicate this extends to any instance where the CEO is not obligated to maximize profits. Is the only reason A is wrong then because charities are not explicitly stated as being a part of this? Or just because it is a 'most likely to agree' question and that B is a stronger choice?
got this right 30 seconds faster than the target because I immediately went with my gut when I saw exactly what I was looking for. Going to continue using this strategy in future RC questions
I was just wondering if theres a way to change the time so the target time is for just one question? I think the target time is allowing for the entire question section of this passage
Should I put any emphasis on the difference between "obligated" and "should"? In LR, "should" is a key component of an argument's main conclusion, and it's often found in causal reasoning or non-conditional reasoning. The difference is that "should" is not "must." Where "obligated" is more like "must." I believe I've seen a few LR questions that conclude with an "obligation" which is a strong main conclusion, much stronger than a suggestion, which makes me believe it is more in the "must" or "always" or "necessary" family.
I say this because answer (A)'s point is "obligation" where answer (B) is "should" or a suggestion.
I understand why B but I initially got rid of it bc if its owner operated why would it have a CEO? Those seem to contradict
1
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
29 comments
11 seconds over :(
This is the first ever question that I got right under the recommended time. Usually I am always so over the recommended time!
"Work[ing] to maximize profits" and "[making] decisions that are based primarily on maximizing profits" are two completely different things to me...that's why B doesn't make sense in my head.
A is a trick answer if you don't slow down and read the question stem. We are asked about the economist. The economists claims, "CEO's sole responsibility is to the owners, whose primary interest, EXCEPT IN CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS, is the protection of their profits.".
He goes on to say CEOs are bound to seek profits for owners. This claim still only refers to institutions which are not charitable institutions.
This is all we learn about the economists take on charitable organizations. Everything else we learn is in reference to noncharitable organizations.
Hope this helps!
For further understanding - in the same paragraph where A is shown to be wrong in the explanation, it doesn't explain the part of the paragraph saying "even if such a CEO's purpose is to look at the public good and nothing else, they should still work to maximize profits" and in the sentence before that it is indicate this extends to any instance where the CEO is not obligated to maximize profits. Is the only reason A is wrong then because charities are not explicitly stated as being a part of this? Or just because it is a 'most likely to agree' question and that B is a stronger choice?
got this right 30 seconds faster than the target because I immediately went with my gut when I saw exactly what I was looking for. Going to continue using this strategy in future RC questions
Got it right 14 seconds faster than the target
these questions are so much easier when you get a 20 min Kevin explanation of every sentence
They got me in the first half, but i found my mistake in blind review.
Kevin cannot hide his class consciousness even for a second
almost had me SIKE
I was just wondering if theres a way to change the time so the target time is for just one question? I think the target time is allowing for the entire question section of this passage
The charity call out lmao
I had the right answer then on the Blind Review i switched. I hate when i do that.
Should I put any emphasis on the difference between "obligated" and "should"? In LR, "should" is a key component of an argument's main conclusion, and it's often found in causal reasoning or non-conditional reasoning. The difference is that "should" is not "must." Where "obligated" is more like "must." I believe I've seen a few LR questions that conclude with an "obligation" which is a strong main conclusion, much stronger than a suggestion, which makes me believe it is more in the "must" or "always" or "necessary" family.
I say this because answer (A)'s point is "obligation" where answer (B) is "should" or a suggestion.
Not sure if i am getting this correct quickly because i am lucky or if im getting better.
Did anyone else read to quickly and think it was asking what the author would have agreed with?
rich people tax deductions LMAO!
I understand why B but I initially got rid of it bc if its owner operated why would it have a CEO? Those seem to contradict