PrepTest 133, Section 1, Question 11
Meyer was found by his employer to have(46 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(10 more words not shown)
- AAnyone who holds(27 more words not shown)
- BNo PhD program(21 more words not shown)
- CAny University of(19 more words not shown)
- DAnyone who holds(20 more words not shown)
- EThe University of(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why take away a degree when the investigation found no falsified data in the thesis?
Maybe there was some other problem with the thesis, such as plagiarism. That could be one possible explanation, but we haven't been given evidence of it. What we do have is a finding of scientific fraud in Meyer's employment, which the university has validated. The fraud is established in that setting even though the thesis investigation didn't find the same problem.
The question asks for a university policy that justifies revoking the degree. So connect the misconduct we know about with the consequence we're trying to justify. A policy saying that a graduate loses the degree for scientific fraud, even after graduating, would do it. We wouldn't need to find an additional problem in the thesis.
What we’re looking for
Watch both ends of each policy: who does it cover, and what does it authorize? We're dealing with a degree holder and revocation of that degree, not an applicant seeking admission or an employee seeking a job.
Working the answers
- A
This policy applies when fraud occurred in the course of pursuing the PhD. We don't have that finding about Meyer. The university investigated his thesis and found no evidence of falsified data there. That doesn't prove his academic work was perfect, but we can't assume an additional discovery of academic fraud just to make this policy apply.
- B
Admission is a different decision. Meyer already holds the degree. A rule about whom the university will admit doesn't tell us when it can take a graduate's degree away. Even a strict admissions rule needs a separate connection to revocation.
- C
This concerns dismissing a student for falsified academic work. Meyer is described as a graduate who committed fraud in his employment, and the decision is to revoke his PhD. We aren't given either the student misconduct that triggers C or a rule equating dismissal with taking away an earned degree.
- DCorrect
Meyer holds a Williamstown PhD and has been found to have committed scientific fraud. Those are the policy's requirements, and both are satisfied. The consequence is revocation of the PhD. Unlike A, this policy doesn't restrict the fraud to work done while pursuing the degree, so the employment finding is enough.
- E
This controls hiring people who are under investigation. The university isn't deciding whether to hire Meyer; it's deciding whether he should keep his degree after a validated finding of fraud. A hiring restriction doesn't justify that different action.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.