DISCUSSION: When a question mentions a specific line, you should go back and read the entire section for context.
Here, “cynical bean counters” are corporate managers. They change classic perfume recipes to use cheaper ingredients. Profits are higher, but quality is worse and the perfumes in question are no longer great art.
To parallel this, look for someone who makes something worse, in order to profit. Like perfume manufacturers, they will hope no one will notice their changes.
- Popular tastes aren’t necessarily bad. And this answer doesn’t mention trying to save money.
- CORRECT. This matches. Movies can be art. Here, the restrictions seem likely to lower the quality of the director’s art in order to save money.
- This is similar, but not the same. Corporations cut perfume costs in order to increase profit. They weren’t forced to do this, they just wanted more money.
Whereas here the art institute has no choice. Revenues are likely to decline, so presumably they must cut costs or go bankrupt.
Note: You could of course construct an elaborate scenario where revenue declines but cuts aren’t yet necessary and the director is using it as an excuse, etc. etc. But the principle of charity, which the LSAT uses, directs us not to think the worst of people. The director doesn’t seem to be acting maliciously, so we should not strain ourselves to assume they’re evil.
- This isn’t a bad thing. It’s true the business executive’s motives are commercial, but it doesn’t sound like they’re harming art. Whereas perfume company executives were destroying perfume for profit.
- It sounds like the art dean is taking advantage of their position, but they aren’t necessarily harming art. Perhaps their pet project is good art. Whereas the perfume company executives were definitely making perfumes worse.
Also, the art dean’s motives are not commercial.
Want a free Reading Comp lesson?
Get a free sample of the Reading Comprehension Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving RC questions