QUESTION TYPE: Point at Issue
ARGUMENTS: Franklin says we are inconsistent to pay athletes much more than Nobel Prize winners. Both groups have rare talents and work hard.
Tomeka points out that athletes earn millions of dollars for their employers.
ANALYSIS: They disagree on whether it is inconsistent to pay two groups differently if they have the same talents and both work hard.
- We can take someone seriously even if we don’t pay them much. Neither of the two of them talk about how seriously we should take Nobel prize winners.
- Tomeka says no. Franklin would only say that we should pay laureates equally, not more.
- Franklin says yes. Tomeka doesn’t disagree, they just point out that athletes earn more money for their employers.
- CORRECT. Franklin thinks we are being inconsistent (irrational.) Tomeka points out that athletes earn lots of money for their employers. That could provide a rational basis for the employers to pay them more.
- Neither of them talks about what the “social contributions” of athletes should be.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly