PT21.S2.Q15 - in most corporations the salaries

skrishnan

Got this question right because of process of elimination, but I don't quite understand why A is the right answer?
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-21-section-2-question-15/

BinghamtonDave

This is an interesting question because the question stem is a bit odd but at bottom, taps into something we are familiar with. We are asked to abstract the line of criticism used in the stimulus, and then find the answer choice that is most vulnerable to that same line of criticism.

The line of criticism used in the stimulus is that because a group has a purported material interest in something, that group cannot be trusted in formulating that something. I believe a colloquial example of this would be something akin to: we should not let bankers write and set the regulations for banking. The assumption being if an entity is self interested and involved in something that might collide with their self interest, they will choose self interest. In our example the line of reasoning might be: if we let bankers set their own regulations, it will be the wild west out there.

Our stimulus says: it isn't a good idea to let corporate executives set salaries, because those setting the salaries have a material interest in setting (high) salaries. In short, the author is saying that those with an interest cannot divorce themselves from that interest.

Lets pause. Why is this a flaw? Why is this erroneous reasoning? I believe at bottom it is a variation on the ad hominem attack.

Lets take that understand and ask ourselves if we can apply it to the situation in (A). Do doctors have the potential for self interest in the decisions involved in settlements of medical malpractice suits? Sure, that isn't too much of a stretch. If we adopt the variation of the ad hominem above, we can construct a similarly flawed pattern of reasoning from answer choice (A).

In summation, this question shows us the importance of being flexible in our thinking about LR questions.

David

skrishnan

@BinghamtonDave Thank you for this! Absolutely love the way you approach these arguments!