PrepTest 152, Section 2, Question 4
In view of the considerable length of the(45 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(9 more words not shown)
- AAny supervisor who(13 more words not shown)
- BIf a person(31 more words not shown)
- CA supervisor should(24 more words not shown)
- DIf corruption is(28 more words not shown)
- EIf a person(28 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Being in charge for a long time can make accountability seem reasonable. But has the argument established it?
My first question would be how long the chief has served. Three years and thirty years could create different expectations about what a leader has had time to change. The passage doesn't give a number; it describes the tenure as considerable, so that is the fact we have to work with.
There could still be a defense. What if the chief has been trying hard to remove corrupt officers but hasn't succeeded? We have no discovered evidence of the chief's personal involvement. That doesn't establish innocence of every leadership failure, but it does make us ask why tenure alone settles responsibility.
What we’re looking for
We're asked for a principle that justifies holding the chief accountable. I'd look for a rule that places responsibility for widespread corruption on a long-serving leader, even without evidence that the leader participated personally.
Working the answers
- A
Knowingly tolerating corruption would satisfy this rule, but we haven't established that the chief knew about it and tolerated it. A gives us a route to accountability only after adding that further description of the chief's conduct. Long tenure and widespread corruption alone don't supply it.
- B
Widespread corruption doesn't mean every subordinate is corrupt. Even if corruption affected most officers, it could fall short of B's condition that all are corrupt. B also concludes knowledge, not accountability. We would still need a rule connecting that knowledge to the conclusion the author wants.
- C
This places a restriction on holding someone accountable: the supervisor must reasonably be expected to know. It doesn't say that satisfying that requirement is enough to establish responsibility, and the passage hasn't established the expectation either. A rule telling us when accountability is ruled out doesn't, by itself, give us the affirmative justification we need.
- D
This protects a newly appointed leader from an expectation of corrective action. Our chief has served for a considerable time. Removing an excuse for short tenure wouldn't itself establish that every long-serving leader is accountable, and D doesn't supply such a rule.
- ECorrect
Long service in authority rules out an excuse that would remove responsibility for widespread corruption among subordinates. The chief has that tenure, and the department has that widespread corruption. Under E, the absence of discovered personal involvement doesn't let the chief escape accountability. We don't have to prove the chief personally committed a corrupt act; the principle makes leadership responsibility sufficient for the argument's purpose.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.