LSAT 138 – Section 2 – Question 04

LSAT 138 - Section 2 - Question 04

December 2012

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 0:58

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
PT138 S2 Q04
+LR
Weaken +Weak
Analogy +An
A
1%
155
B
96%
164
C
2%
154
D
0%
144
E
0%
152
127
135
144
 +Easier 147.395 +SubsectionMedium

Columnist: The managers of some companies routinely donate a certain percentage of their companies’ profits each year to charity. Although this practice may seem totally justified and even admirable, it is not. After all, corporate profits are not the property of the managers, but of the companies’ owners. The legendary Robin Hood may have stolen from the rich to give to the poor, but he was nevertheless stealing.

Summarize Argument

The columnist concludes that company managers’ decision to donate company profits to charity is not justified or admirable. She supports this by comparing the managers to Robin Hood. Just as Robin Hood stole from the rich to give to the poor, the managers, who are not the owners of company profits, are stealing from company owners to give to charity.

Notable Assumptions

The columnist assumes that company managers donating profits to charities can be rightly compared to Robin Hood stealing from the rich to give to the poor. If she believes that the donations amount to stealing since the managers don’t own company profits, she must assume that company owners are either unaware of or else do not approve of these donations.

A
The profits that a company makes in a given year are, in part, returned to the owners of the company.

The fact that part of the profits are returned to company owners does not weaken the conclusion that donating some of the profits is stealing from those owners.

B
Managers who routinely donate a certain percentage of corporate profits to charity do so with the owners’ tacit consent.

For the columnist to compare company managers to Robin Hood, she must assume that company owners do not consent to the donation of profits. However, if the owners do consent, her conclusion that managers are stealing from them falls apart.

C
Company managers often donate part of their own income to charities or other philanthropic organizations.

The columnist argues that the managers are stealing from owners when they donate company profits that they do not own. Whether the managers also donate from their own income is irrelevant here, since it would not amount to stealing from the owners.

D
Any charity that accepts corporate donations needs to be able to account for how that money is spent.

This may be true, but it does not weaken the columnist’s conclusion. Her argument is about what company managers should and should not do in regard to charitable donations, rather than about what the charities themselves should or should not do.

E
Charities often solicit contributions from companies as well as private individuals.

Like (D), this misses the point of the columnist’s argument. The actions of charities are irrelevant to the conclusion that company managers steal from company owners when they donate company profits to charity.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 138 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply