PrepTest 120, Section 1, Question 3
When a lawmaker spoke out against a research(79 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(22 more words not shown)
- AA person should(22 more words not shown)
- BThe chair of(21 more words not shown)
- CA person who(33 more words not shown)
- DSince academic institutions(25 more words not shown)
- EAcademic institutions have(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Is the research actually a waste of money? We don't know. The lawmaker says it is, the other professors object, and the department chair privately supports the project. Their positions don't settle the value of the research.
What interests me is the chair's reason for staying out of the protest. She previously praised this lawmaker for exposing waste in military spending. Now that the criticism concerns her own department, she won't sign a letter attacking his interference. It sounds as though she's trying to be consistent: don't welcome scrutiny when someone else's money is at stake and reject it when the scrutiny reaches your own work.
What we’re looking for
That doesn't automatically make her decision right. Perhaps this criticism is badly informed even though the earlier criticism was sensible. But the question asks for a principle that would justify her refusal on the grounds she gives. We need a rule connecting her previous praise for this watchdog role with her refusal to attack that role now that her professional interests are involved.
Working the answers
- A
This requires careful consideration before criticism. We aren't told that the chair failed to consider the current case carefully, and her stated reason isn't that she needs more time to think. It's that she previously praised the lawmaker for scrutinizing another use of public money. A doesn't explain why that history should keep her from signing.
- B
An obligation to spend funds wisely doesn't tell the chair whether to criticize this lawmaker. She might think the research is a wise expenditure and still have that obligation. We need a rule about her response to the scrutiny, not simply a rule about managing the department's money.
- CCorrect
This matches both parts of her reason. She praised the lawmaker's watchdog role in the military case, and the new case involves her professional interests. Under C's rule, she should not criticize his attempt to play that same role now. We don't have to accept the rule as good advice in every real situation; if it is established, it supports this refusal without requiring us to decide whether the research is wasteful.
- D
This would broadly bar an academic representative from publicly judging government officials, including praising them. But the chair bases her refusal on her earlier praise, not on her institution's tax status. The question asks us to justify her stated reason, and D substitutes a different one.
- E
Both institutions might have a duty to use public money wisely. That still doesn't tell us whether the chair should sign the protest. A duty concerning spending doesn't by itself establish how someone must respond when a lawmaker criticizes that spending.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.