- Mon Nov 16, 2020 1:05 pm
#81190
You're correct that the disgruntled former employees are the ones who may have an ulterior motive. But answer C is wrong because that ulterior motive, whether Kramer's or the employees', is not why the author rejects the conclusion. The author rejects the conclusion because some of the support for it - the allegation that the companies did not make major investments in other industries - turns out to be false. In short, the argument is "one of your premises is false, therefore your conclusion must be false," and that is not a valid argument. We might call that a "some evidence" flaw, where the author has weakened an opposing position but has acted as if they completely disproved that position.
It doesn't matter whose motives are being considered in answer C, because the author did not base their argument on an attack on those motives!
Adam M. Tyson
PowerScore LSAT, GRE, ACT and SAT Instructor
Follow me on Twitter at
https://twitter.com/LSATadam