LSATHacks
  • Explanations
  • Tutoring
  • Courses
  • Login
  • Cart
  • Explanations
  • Tutoring
  • Courses
  • Login
  • Cart
LSAT Explanations › Preptest 138 › Logical Reasoning › Question 4

LSAT 138 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q4

LSAT Preptest 138 explanations

LR Question 4 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Columnist: The managers of some companies routinely…

QUESTION TYPE: Weaken

CONCLUSION: Managers shouldn’t donate company funds.

REASONING: Managers don’t own company funds. The money belongs to the owners.

ANALYSIS: The author hasn’t said what owners think of these donations. Maybe it was their idea.

___________

  1. If someone is taking care of my money, I’d prefer for all of it to be returned, not just a part of it.
  2. CORRECT. This shows that the owners know about the donations and approve. The managers aren’t stealing.
  3. Donating to charity doesn’t excuse theft.
  4. This is just a fact about how charities spend money. It doesn’t show that it’s ok for managers to donate money.
  5. This is just a fact about how charities get donations. It doesn’t tell us whether managers are right to donate.
Previous Question
↑ Return to PT 138
Next Question

More Resources for Weaken Questions

  • Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Weaken questions.
  • Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers weaken questions.

Hi, I'm Graeme Blake

I scored a 177 on the LSAT. I founded LSATHacks and created the LSAT Mastery Seminars to help students succeed.

I’ve personally written explanations for 5,000+ LSAT questions. If you find these explanations helpful, you'll definitely like our courses.

Join my email list for LSAT study tips and resources.

Comments

  1. Vince says

    July 21, 2016 at 3:30 pm

    Hi,

    Can you elaborate more why answer choice C incorrect? I have a hunch that donating “their own income” is more of an out of scope answer because it does not directly involve property of the owners. Thanks!

    Reply
    • Graeme says Founder

      July 22, 2016 at 2:17 pm

      I think I meant “personal charity doesn’t help the fact that the managers did commit theft with company funds”

      And yes, I think it’s “out of scope”. But I don’t like that explanation, because you want to actually think of the real reason why something is irrelevant (as you did). Relying on “out of scope” may sometimes lead to the incorrect elimination of correct answers because they seem “out of scope” but actually are relevant.

      Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Free LSAT Email Course

My best LSAT tips, straight to your inbox

Increase Your Score

LSATHacks Courses Aiming For The 170S? See exactly how a top scorer thinks INCREASE YOUR SCORE
“The seminars teach you how to think like a high-scorer so that you can choose the correct answer quickly.” — Jay
“Not only did my score improve but I was able to approach LR with utter confidence” — Kacie L.

Resources

  • Articles
  • Blog
  • Free Email Course
  • LSAT Preptest Converter
  • Experimental Section Checker
  • LSAT Prep Books

About LSATHacks

  • About/Contact
  • Courses
  • Free Trial

Community

  • Discord
  • Social Media
  • Webinars
Disclaimer: Use of these explanations requires official LSAT preptests. LSAT is a registered trademark of LSAC.
LSAC does not review or endorse specific test preparation materials or services and has not reviewed this site.

© Copyright 2026 LSATHacks. All Rights Reserved. | Privacy | Terms