LSAT 107 – Section 4 – Question 16

LSAT 107 - Section 4 - Question 16

October 1999

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Target time: 0:55

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT107 S4 Q16
+LR
Point at issue: disagree +Disagr
A
1%
159
B
10%
159
C
4%
157
D
85%
165
E
1%
149
136
146
156
 +Medium 141.321 +SubsectionEasier

Franklin: It is inconsistent to pay sports celebrities ten times what Nobel laureates are paid. Both have rare talents and work hard.

Tomeka: What you’ve neglected to consider is that unlike Nobel laureates, sports celebrities earn millions of dollars for their employers in the form of gate receipts and TV rights.

Speaker 1 Summary
Franklin argues that it’s “inconsistent” to pay top athletes ten times more than Nobel prize winners. As support, Franklin points to similarities between the two: both have rare talents, and both must work hard.

Speaker 2 Summary
Tomeka’s argument is designed to support the (implied) conclusion that the athlete/Nobel laureate pay gap is not inconsistent. Tomeka supports this with a difference between the two: sports celebrities bring their employers tons of money from ticket sales and TV rights, whereas Nobel laureates do not.

Objective
We need to find a statement whose truth Franklin and Tomeka would disagree about. The main point of disagreement between the speakers is whether the pay gap between sports celebrities and Nobel laureates is truly inconsistent, as Franklin claims, or warranted by the circumstances, as Tomeka implies.

A
Nobel laureates should be taken more seriously.
Neither speaker says anything about how seriously people take Nobel laureates, let alone whether we should take them more seriously.
B
Nobel laureates should be paid more than sports celebrities.
Tomeka would likely disagree with this claim, but Franklin never expresses an opinion. At most, Franklin’s argument seems designed to support equal pay, so we cannot say that either speaker would agree with this claim.
C
Sports celebrities and Nobel laureates work equally hard for their employers.
Neither speaker actually expresses an opinion about this. Franklin comes close with the claim that both sports celebrities and Nobel laureates work hard, but there’s still no outright comparison of how hard they work.
D
There is no rational basis for the salary difference between sports celebrities and Nobel laureates.
Franklin agrees with this, but Tomeka is implied to disagree, making this the point of disagreement. Franklin’s conclusion is that the pay gap is “inconsistent,” meaning that it doesn’t make sense. Tomeka, however, points out a difference that would explain a pay gap.
E
The social contributions made by sports celebrities should be greater than they currently are.
Neither speaker brings up social contributions at all. The issue is whether it makes sense that sports celebrities are paid much more than Nobel laureates; social contributions are totally outside the scope of the argument.

</section

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 107 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply