PrepTest 131, Section 3, Question 2
A university psychology department received a large donation(64 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(11 more words not shown)
- AThe members of(19 more words not shown)
- BThe department has(13 more words not shown)
- CIn the previous(14 more words not shown)
- DThe department chair(9 more words not shown)
- EThe textbook company(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A donation tied to using the company's textbook certainly gives us a reason to ask about the department's motives. Did it choose the best book for its students, or did it choose the book that would bring in money? Imagine a publisher donating $50,000 while earning hundreds of thousands from the resulting textbook sales. The donation could be an attractive business deal for the publisher as well as a source of money for the department.
Still, the donation alone doesn't settle that. The department could have chosen the book for academic reasons and then received a welcome donation. Suspicious circumstances aren't proof that the stated reason is false.
The chair tries to resolve that concern by pointing to the textbook committee's highest rating. But where did that rating come from? What if the committee knew money was coming and let that prospect influence its evaluation? Moving the decision to a committee wouldn't remove the financial motive if the committee shared it.
What we’re looking for
To weaken the chair's position, I'd look for evidence that the rating itself was influenced by the donation. Then the chair couldn't use that rating as independent reassurance that the choice was solely academic.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
The anticipated donation favorably influenced the committee's view of the textbook. That is exactly the problem with the chair's evidence: the rating used to defend the department's motives was itself affected by a financial consideration. The book could still be academically good, but the highest rating no longer supports the claim that academic reasons alone drove the choice.
- B
Following a policy about ratings doesn't tell us whether the ratings were based solely on academic considerations. The department could use only the highest-rated textbooks while the committee let donations influence which books received that rating. B leaves our concern untouched.
- C
Last year's use of another book from this company doesn't establish why this year's book was selected. The earlier book might have been excellent, or the department might have had some other reason to use it. Without information about those decisions, the repeated publisher doesn't expose a financial influence on the current rating.
- D
Being on the committee doesn't show that the chair or any other member allowed money to influence the evaluation. The chair could participate in a fair academic review. We need evidence about the motive for the rating, not merely the identity of one of the people giving it.
- E
An unusual donation is not necessarily an improper influence. The company could rarely donate and still make this donation after a choice based entirely on academic merit. E doesn't tell us what affected the committee's rating or the department's selection.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.