Logical Reasoning

PT138 · S2 · Q4 Columnist: The managers of some

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

Columnist: The managers of some companies routinely donate a certain percentage of their companies' profits each year to charity.

Conclusion

It's not justified or admirable for managers to donate company profits to charity.

Evidence

Profits belong to the owners, not the managers.

Analogy: Robin Hood gave to the poor from the rich, but he was still stealing.

Evaluate

Since our task is to weaken an analogy, we know that we need to make these two cases NOT fair to compare.

What could be an important difference between Robin Hood stealing money from rich people and giving it poor people, and managers donating a certain percentage of company profits to charity?

Goal

Find an answer that makes these two cases unfair to compare, or that helps us to legitimize the practice of managers' donating some % of profits to charity.

4.

Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the analogy used in the argument?

  1. The profits that a company

    No Impact

    This doesn't point out a salient difference between managers and Robin Hood. It's essentially saying that the owners of the company get to keep some of the profits. I'm guessing Robin Hood didn't manage to steal all of the rich people's money, so this is probably parallel. The open question is whether the money that the managers / Robin Hood are taking is stealing or something more justified.

    4% picked this

  2. Correct

    Managers who routinely donate a

    Why this is right

    This ruins the analogy. Robin Hood took without permission; that's what made him a thief. That's what made it stealing. The rich people of Nottingham didn't give Robin Hood their tacit consent to steal from them. If managers donate with the owners' tacit consent, then the managers aren't taking what isn't theirs without authorization. They're acting with the owners' approval. This practice is justified.

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

    89% picked this

  3. Company managers often donate part

    Out of Scope

    The argument is about managers donating company profits, not their own income. Whether managers also donate personally doesn't bear on whether donating company funds is comparable to Robin Hood's theft.

    6% picked this

  4. Any charity that accepts corporate

    Out of Scope

    This is about whether the charity is doing something right or wrong. We're supposed to be evaluating whether the manager was doing something right or wrong then donating a % of profits to charity.

    0% picked this

  5. Charities often solicit contributions from

    No Impact

    Like (D), this is talking about what the charity is doing. We're supposed to be evaluating whether the manager was doing something right or wrong then donating a % of profits to charity.

    1% 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