QUESTION TYPE: Point at Issue
ARGUMENTS: Nick says we should hire the Pincus family because they’ve donated a lot of money.
Pedro says we don’t owe Pincus anything. True donations are no strings attached: nothing is expected in return. We should therefore hire the best company.
ANALYSIS: Nick and Pedro disagree on whether donations oblige a university to reward the donor.
- This is a tempting trap. Pedro isn’t arguing about loyalty. He’s arguing about what a donation means. Pedro’s claim is that since donations are freely given, with no expectation, then we don’t owe loyalty in such a case.
(Pedro might agree loyalty is important in a situation where it was owed.)
- Neither person says why the Pincus family donated.
- CORRECT. Nick thinks this is true. He thinks donations oblige loyalty. Pedro disagrees: because donations are charitable, they don’t impose obligations.
- Neither person said what to do in a case where the university was choosing between a new donor and a longtime donor. They’re instead discussing between rewarding a donor and rewarding a competing company (which is presumably not a donor).
- Neither person says what the most competitive bid is. They imply it’s not the Pincus family, but no one says it outright. And in their implication, Nick and Pedro seem to agree that Pincus wouldn’t win a fair competition.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly