LSAT 122 – Section 2 – Question 10

LSAT 122 - Section 2 - Question 10

June 2006

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 0:56

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
PT122 S2 Q10
+LR
Point at issue: disagree +Disagr
Conditional Reasoning +CondR
A
2%
154
B
0%
142
C
0%
147
D
2%
153
E
96%
164
129
136
144
 +Easier 146.896 +SubsectionMedium

Megan: People pursue wealth beyond what their basic needs require only if they see it as a way of achieving high status or prestige.

Channen: Not everybody thinks that way. After all, money is the universal medium of exchange. So, if you have enough of it, you can exchange it for whatever other material goods you may need or want even if you are indifferent to what others think of you.

Speaker 1 Summary
Megan doesn’t make an argument, instead just stating a claim that once people’s basic needs are met, they only pursue additional wealth in order to increase their status or prestige.

Speaker 2 Summary
Channen argues that not everyone thinks about wealth in the way Megan describes. To show this, Channen points out that money is the universal medium of exchange. This means that even someone who doesn’t care about status or prestige might want more money in order to buy material goods. This acts as a hypothetical counter-example to Megan’s claim.

Objective
We need to find a point of disagreement. Megan and Channen disagree about the reasons people might have for pursuing wealth after their basic needs are met. Megan thinks the only reason is status and prestige, but Channen thinks there are other possibilities.

A
people ever pursue wealth beyond what is required for their basic needs
Both speakers agree that people can pursue wealth beyond what is required for their basic needs. Their disagreement is just about what would motivate someone to do so.
B
it is irrational to try to achieve high status or prestige in the eyes of one’s society
Like (C) and (D), neither speaker discusses rationality at all. The argument between Megan and Channen is about what people’s motivations are, not whether those motivations are rational.
C
the pursuit of monetary wealth is irrational only when it has no further purpose
Like (B) and (D), neither Megan nor Channen says anything about rationality or irrationality. What’s at question here is why people would seek wealth past a certain point, not whether the reasons for doing so are rational.
D
it is rational to maximize one’s ability to purchase whatever one wants only when the motive for doing so is something other than the desire for prestige
Like (B) and (C), rationality is never brought up by either speaker. The question of whether seeking additional wealth is rational is simply outside the scope of Megan and Channen’s discussion.
E
the motive for pursuing wealth beyond what one’s basic needs require is ever anything other than the desire for prestige or high status
Megan disagrees with this: her only claim is that this statement is not true. Channen, however, agrees and offers a hypothetical example to support this idea. This is the point of disagreement.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 122 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply