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.

Ask a tutor

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 drawing an analogy between the managers and 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

For her analogy to support her conclusion, the columnist must assume that company managers donating profits to charities are similar in all relevant ways to Robin Hood stealing from the rich to give to the poor. In other words, she must believe there are no relevant differences or dissimilarities between the two scenarios.

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 doesn’t weaken the conclusion that donating some of the profits to charity is not justified. (A) also doesn’t provide a relevant difference between the managers’ donations and Robin Hood’s stealing.

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

This points out a relevant difference between managers’ donations and Robin Hood’s theft. To draw an analogy between the two, the columnist must assume the owners don’t consent to the donations, just as the rich don’t consent to Robin Hood’s theft. (B) attacks that assumption.

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

The author assumes that managers are stealing when they donate company profits that they don’t own. Whether managers also donate from their own income is irrelevant, since it wouldn’t amount to stealing and doesn’t highlight a relevant difference between managers and Robin Hood.

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

The argument is about what company managers do in regard to charitable donations, rather than about what the charities themselves should or shouldn’t do. Thus, (D) doesn’t weaken the columnist’s conclusion or provide a relevant difference between the managers and Robin Hood.

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

Like (D), this misses the point of the columnist’s argument and fails to provide a relevant difference between managers and Robin Hood. The actions of charities are irrelevant to the conclusion that company managers’ donations amount to stealing.

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