PrepTest 137, Section 2, Question 8
Guideline: It is improper for public officials to(72 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(10 more words not shown)
- APublic officials, when(12 more words not shown)
- BPublicly funded contracts(13 more words not shown)
- CCreating the appearance(8 more words not shown)
- DAwarding a contract(12 more words not shown)
- EBenefiting one's family(8 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Awarding a city contract to the mayor's relative looks questionable. Even if that relative submitted the best bid, we can understand why people might suspect favoritism.
But let's read the rule closely. It prohibits officials from using their office to benefit themselves, and it also tells them to avoid the appearance of doing so. The application says the contract saved a relative's business. Is helping that relative the same as benefiting the mayor?
What we’re looking for
Perhaps helping family makes the next holiday gathering less awkward. Still, the argument hasn't established that this benefit to the relative counts as a benefit to the official. To justify the application, I'd want a principle connecting those two things: benefiting family counts as benefiting oneself.
Working the answers
- A
A higher standard for public officials doesn't tell us what that standard requires here. We still need to connect helping the relative with the rule about helping oneself. Comparing public officials with private individuals leaves that connection missing.
- B
The relative's company might have offered the lowest price and been completely reliable. The passage doesn't tell us otherwise. A rule favoring cost and reliability therefore doesn't establish that awarding this contract was improper under the stated guideline.
- C
We don't need appearances and actual misconduct to be equally blameworthy. Imagine actual misconduct rates a ten on a blameworthiness scale and the appearance rates a five. Both could deserve criticism even though one is worse.
More importantly, equal blame doesn't supply the missing connection between helping a relative and helping oneself. The guideline already says appearances should be avoided. C doesn't show how the particular benefit described in the application falls under its concern about self-benefit.
- D
Financial trouble could make awarding the contract risky, but that is a different objection. The guideline concerns officials using their position to benefit themselves. Calling the contract risky doesn't connect the relative's financial rescue to a benefit for the mayor.
- ECorrect
This provides the connection directly. Benefits to family or friends are to count as benefits to oneself. The mayor urged an official contract that benefited a relative, so under this principle the mayor used the office in a way that counts as benefiting the mayor. That brings the action within the guideline's prohibition.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.