Logical Reasoning

PT153 · S2 · Q26 People should patronize businesses

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

People should patronize businesses that meet high ethical standards, and the news media should help them to patronize those businesses.

Conclusion

If a business does something notably ethical positive, the news media should publicize that fact.

Evidence

People should patronize businesses that meet high ethical standards, and when people hear about a business's ethical conduct (i.e. through news media publicity) they are often motivated to support that business.

Evaluate

GIVEN that we should patronize businesses with high ethical standards, and GIVEN that people often patronize a business when they hear about it acting ethically, HOW COULD WE ARGUE that when a business performs a notably ethical action, the news media should not necessarily publicize that fact?

The one way that came to me was if it's a transparent publicity stunt, we don't want to promote it and give that fossil fuel enabling company the good press it deserves.

Like if Exxon is accelerating climate change, the media shouldn't cover a "tree-planting ceremony" Exxon is doing near city hall and then motivate people to patronize Exxon as though they're some highly ethical company.

Goal

Find way to say that sometimes the media might drive people to patronize a business that isn't meeting high ethical standards, they're just doing a notably ethical action to get good publicity.

26.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

Some businesses that have high
Too Weak
We need an objection like "many businesses that perform a notably ethical action are not meeting high ethical standards in general".
11% picked this
Correct
Meeting high ethical standards is
Why this is right
This is a tough correct answer, but it's helping us to argue that a company that performed a notably ethical action isn't necessarily meeting high ethical standards. It essentially makes the objection that "meeting high ethical standards is about not doing harm, it isn't about doing something nice, like a tree-planting". Our author is thinking that when a company does a notably ethical action, they reveal themselves to be meeting high ethical standards (and so the media should publicize them). This answer is saying "a notably ethical action does not reveal that a company is meeting high ethical standards. We need to judge that by seeing whether they refrain from unethical behavior." If the media's goal is to publicize highly ethical companies, they should go based off whether a business refrains from doing something unethical.
Skill tested: Weaken · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
46% picked this
It is relatively easy for
Out of Scope: meeting its standards
The argument doesn't talk about ethical standards as a company by company thing. It's acting like "high ethical standards" is an objective measurement that we can say businesses do or don't meet. This answer would have worked if the argument had said, "People should patronize businesses that meet high ethical standards. And since Company X for 10 years has met the ethical standards they set for themselves, the media should publicize them." We might object that they set really easy standards to meet, and thus aren't necessarily highly ethical.
15% picked this
The news media is more
Out of Scope: more publicized
This is a normative argument about what media should do. What they do do in practice is not relevant. It wouldn't make any difference to this argument if the media is currently more likely to publicize bad behavior than good behavior.
16% picked this
Some businesses that meet high
Too Weak / No Impact
Answers with "some" are almost always wrong on Strengthen / Weaken / Paradox, because some is "at least one", so you really only get one data point with that strength. Either way, it's not relevant to the argument whether companies would abandon high ethical standards were those standards keeping them from being profitable. As long as some companies are meeting high ethical standards, the author's argument can work. He's saying we want to patronize those, so the media should publicize them. The only sticking point is whether "performing a notably ethical action" is a reliable indicator of high ethical standards.
12% 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