PrepTest 105, Section 4, Question 7
Willett: Lopez and Simmons, a married couple, have(89 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(12 more words not shown)
- ACorporations that have(20 more words not shown)
- BCorporations should adopt(24 more words not shown)
- CJob applicants are(22 more words not shown)
- DJob candidates should(13 more words not shown)
- EJob candidates have(19 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Keeping both job offers would be an advantage. Is that enough to call disclosure foolish?
Willett points to the offer they would lose and gives them a possible way to conceal their existing marriage. But Lopez and Simmons might have other options, or value being straightforward. Even if they can keep the marriage secret at first, a later false claim about its date could create a different problem.
The rule for employees who marry after being hired doesn't automatically settle those concerns about an already-married couple. I understand the proposed strategy, but I still want a reason to accept the judgment that they should choose it.
What we’re looking for
This question asks for a principle supporting Willett's reasoning. My initial guess would be a rule favoring a choice that protects the job offers when doing so carries no adverse consequences. That is a possible direction to look, not a principle the passage has already established. Let's see what kind of support the choices actually give.
Working the answers
- A
This tells corporations to make their rules more restrictive. It doesn't justify Willett's advice to the couple. If anything, eliminating the permission for employees to marry would remove part of the practical contrast Willett relies on.
- B
Whether a family-hiring restriction promotes fairness is a question about the corporation's policy. Willett is judging the couple's decision under an existing policy. B gives a possible reason to adopt the rule, not a reason for Lopez and Simmons to conceal information about their marriage.
- C
This restricts withholding requested information to the same extent as lying on an application. It supplies no permission to withhold, and we aren't told that the application asked about marriage. In any event, a rule comparing those two actions doesn't support Willett's recommendation to keep the marriage private.
- D
This recommends declining a position when the applicants cannot follow its personnel policies. Willett wants the couple to keep both offers by concealing their marriage. Refusing the positions is a different proposed response, not support for that recommendation.
- ECorrect
This supplies a different kind of support from the practical rule I initially imagined. It says the applicants have no obligation to volunteer personal information such as marital status, whatever the employer's policy. That removes a possible reason for making the disclosure despite the cost of losing a job offer.
Keep the principle within its actual scope. Having no duty to reveal personal information is not a blanket right to make false statements. E supports withholding the marriage information; it doesn't establish that the later false account Willett suggests is justified or that every practical risk disappears. A principle can strengthen the argument by supporting part of the proposed course without proving every part sound.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.