LSAT 109 – Section 3 – Question 17

LSAT 109 - Section 3 - Question 17

December 2000

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:15

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
PT109 S3 Q17
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Net Effect +NetEff
A
1%
162
B
27%
163
C
65%
169
D
4%
159
E
3%
160
151
160
170
 +Hardest 148.18 +SubsectionMedium

J.Y.’s explanation

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

In a business whose owners and employees all belong to one family, the employees can be paid exceptionally low wages. Hence, general operating expenses are much lower than they would be for other business ventures, making profits higher. So a family business is a family’s surest road to financial prosperity.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that a family business is a family’s surest road to financial prosperity. This is based on the fact that in a business whose owners and employees are all part of a family, the employees can be paid exceptionally low wages. This allow general operating expenses to be lower than they would be for non-family business, which makes profits higher.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The author overlooks the possibility that paying family members exceptionally low wages is something that might undermine a family’s financial prosperity. Although profits might be higher for the family, if family members get lower wages, that might counteract the higher profits and leave the family in no better an economic position.

A
ignores the fact that businesses that achieve high levels of customer satisfaction are often profitable even if they pay high wages
The author never assumed that businesses that pay high wages can’t be profitable. His position is simply that paying exceptionally low wages can help a business become more profitable than it otherwise would be.
B
presumes, without providing justification, that businesses that pay the lowest wages have the lowest general operating expenses and thus the highest profits
This is too extreme. The author does assume that paying low wages leads to lower expenses and higher profits, but that doesn’t mean the business that pays the “lowest” wages has the “lowest” expenses or the “highest” profits.
C
ignores the fact that in a family business, paying family members low wages may itself reduce the family’s prosperity
The author overlooks the fact that paying family members exceptionally low wages might reduce family prosperity, which might cancel out whatever extra profits can be gained in a family business. The overall $ brought in might not be higher if you pay family low wages.
D
presumes, without providing justification, that family members are willing to work for low wages in a family business because they believe that doing so promotes the family’s prosperity
The author doesn’t make any assumptions about employees’ intentions. Maybe they are willing to work for low wages because otherwise they’ll be punished by their parents? The author doesn’t have to think they want to make money for the family.
E
presumes, without providing justification, that only businesses with low general operating expenses can succeed
The author doesn’t take a position on whether only businesses with low general operating expenses can succeed. Maybe other kinds of businesses can succeed, too, but just not as easily or as much.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 109 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply