LSAT 158 | Section 4 | Logical Reasoning: Q18

LR Question 18 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Lindsey: Several people claim that our company was unfair…

QUESTION TYPE: Flaw

CONCLUSION: The company acted fairly.

REASONING: The company said that if its profits increased over last year’s, the staff would all get bonuses. But the profit shrank, so the people who claim that the company was unfair are wrong.

1. Profit rise ➞ Bonus
2. Profit rise ➞ Bonus

ANALYSIS: Lindsey made the most basic of LSAT errors in her argument: she did an incorrect negation! And yet, somehow it took me a while to see it here, and this is generally considered a hard question. But really, that’s all she did: she negated the sufficient condition and then incorrectly negated the necessary. Maybe this is hard to see because her conclusion is “fair” rather than “no bonus needed”.

The reason an incorrect negation is an error is that Lindsey has only eliminated one reason for paying a bonus. There could be other reasons: maybe it was a tough year at the company and management said “Ok we could go bankrupt. If you all pitch in and we avoid a loss, everyone gets bonuses”. If management now didn’t pay, that seems unfair.

___________

1. This sounds like a weird appeal to authority flaw. Sure, the stimulus mentions “several people” but Lindsey’s argument doesn’t depend on their opinions. In fact, she disputes them.
   Example of flaw: My special source says the policy is unfair. I can’t name him. [My source is actually my neighbour]
2. CORRECT. This answer describes an incorrect negation. Lindsey eliminated one reason for paying a bonus: profit rising. But there could be other reasons to pay: eliminating the sufficient condition doesn’t eliminate the necessary. And if there was another sufficient reason to pay a bonus, then not paying one would be unfair.
3. What attributes? Lindsey isn’t dismissing claims based on these people’s personal attributes.
   Example of flaw: Susie complained, but Susie stinks! Until she improves her personal hygiene, I won’t listen to her.
4. This would be a really stupid error. It’s so dumb, no one would ever make it. The size of the quantity would be “the company’s total profit, i.e. $100 million”. The amount by which is has increased would be “the change in profit compared to last year, i.e. -$10 million, if the profit went from $110 million to $100 million”.
    
   So, for this error Lindsey would have had to say “The company had a smaller this year. So it actually ran a loss!”. That’s….really stupid, and she didn’t say that.
   Also, this answer has nothing to do with when a bonus should be paid. It’s just a math error.
   Example of flaw: You gained one pound this past week. So your total weight is one pound. My god you’ve wasted away!
5. Generosity isn’t mentioned in the stimulus. Eliminate. The conclusion is about fairness, which is different from generosity.
   Further, the argument is arguing that the policy is fair. So it absolutely is not overlooking the possibility of the argument being fair!

Recap: The question begins with “Lindsey: Several people claim that our company was unfair”. It is a Flawed Reasoning question. Learn more about LSAT Flaw questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.