Logical Reasoning

PT131 · S3 · Q2 A university psychology department

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

A university psychology department received a large donation from a textbook company after agreeing to use one of the company's books for a large introductory course.

Opposing Point

A university psychology department received a large donation from a textbook company after agreeing to use one of the company’s books for a large introductory course.

The department chair admitted that the department would not have received the donation if it used another company’s textbook.

Evidence

The department’s textbook committee had given that textbook its highest rating.

Conclusion

The book was chosen solely for academic reasons.

Evaluate

Fortunately for the department chair, motivation is a tricky thing to prove. It’s possible that the book is amazing and the donation was a nice bonus, but did not influence the decision. Of course, it’s also possible that the textbook committee was motivated to give the textbook the highest rating by the impending donation.

2.

Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the case for the department chair's position?

  1. Correct

    The members of the textbook

    Why this is right

    This makes the donation at least somewhat responsible for the textbook committee’s decision. Note the degree in the conclusion, “solely for academic reasons.” This shows that is not true.

    Skill tested: Weaken · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    91% picked this

  2. The department has a long-standing

    Strengthen

    This makes it more likely that the academic reasons were the sole reason. Though it’s still possible that the donation motivated the textbook committee’s rating, so it barely strengthens the argument.

    1% picked this

  3. In the previous year, a

    Too Weak

    While a savvy student might suspect collusion to force students to buy expensive new books, this doesn’t indicate why a different textbook was used.

    1% picked this

  4. The department chair is one

    Out of Scope

    There is no reason to question the department chair’s motives in particular. It’s not clear that the department chair would unduly gain relative to other members of the department.

    4% picked this

  5. The textbook company does not

    Strengthen

    This weakens the correlation between a donation and deciding to use the company’s book, thereby making it more likely that academic reasons were solely responsible.

    2% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free