Logical Reasoning

PT147 · S1 · Q11 Nick: The Pincus family and their construction

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

Nick: The Pincus family and their construction company have supported our university financially for decades.

Given Nick's Claims

1. The Pincus family and their construction company have supported our university financially for decades.

2. The university should not give the contract for building its new library to the family's main competitor.

3. Doing so would be disloyal to a friend of the university.

Evaluate Pedro's Responses

1. no comment 2. Disagrees 3. Disagrees (potentially)

Nick states that the university should not give a building contract to the Pincus family's main competitor. Pedro states that the contract should be awarded to "whatever company makes the most competitive bid." This is their clearest point of disagreement.

Neither of them has stated that the Pincus family's competitor made the most competitive bid, but if that ends up being the case then Pedro would give them the contract while Nick would not.

Nick says that giving the contract to the Pincus family's competitor while Pedro says that the university is not obliged to give a donor any special privileges. This seems to be a point of disagreement, but there's also some room to argue that Pedro isn't actually disagreeing. Pedro might be saying,

Goal

Expect the correct answer to addresses claim #2. An answer that addresses claim #3 instead isn't necessarily wrong, but we're a bit less likely to see that. Beware of answers which describe topics that neither person addressed.

11.

The dialogue provides the most support for the claim that Nick and Pedro disagree over whether

  1. loyalty should sometimes be a

    Too Broad: business decisions Nobody Disagrees

    Nick would agree with this. But Pedro only says that the university isn't obliged to give a donor any "special privileges." Pedro isn't arguing that loyalty should never be considered in any business decision, ever. Pedro's comment is specifically about decisions involving donors, but nothing in this answer choice limits it to those specific types of decisions. That makes this answer too broad.

    13% picked this

  2. the Pincus family and their

    Nobody Agrees

    Neither Nick nor Pedro make any claim about the Pincus family's motives.

    0% picked this

  3. Correct

    the acceptance of donations places

    Why this is right

    Nick believes that the university owes loyalty to the Pincus family because they have supported the university financially. Pedro argues that accepting a donation does not create a special obligation to the donor.

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

    85% picked this

  4. the university should be more

    Nobody Agrees

    Neither Nick nor Pedro make any statements comparing new donors to those with a long history of support.

    2% picked this

  5. the Pincus family's construction company

    Nobody Agrees

    None of Nick's statements clearly indicate who made the most competitive bid, and neither do Pedro's. It's entirely possible that Nick and Pedro are having this conversation before anyone has even submitted a bid. They could be talking about what should or shouldn't happen when the university receives bids at some point in the future.

    0% 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