#20 - When the Pinecrest Animal Shelter, a charitable

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Strengthen—Principle. The correct answer choice is (B).

Answer choice (A):

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D):

Answer choice (E):

This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[grunerlokka]

Could someone please help me understand how to get to the right answer for this question? I chose E because it was less restrictive than D, the correct answer. Was the addition of the 'less restrictive' idea in the stimulus just a trap?

[KelseyWoods]

Hi grunerlokka!

First, I want to clarify that the correct answer to this question is answer choice (B). The part of the question stem about "placing the least restriction on the allocation of funds" ends up being a bit of a distraction here. First and foremost, we need to treat this as a Strengthen-Principle question and there is really only one answer choice that provides us with a principle that will strengthen the conclusion of the stimulus, so there's no need for us to make any decisions between multiple principles that strengthen the conclusion based on how restrictive they are.

With Strengthen-Principle questions, we're often just looking for a rule that abstractly matches the argument in the stimulus. So our first step is always to specifically identify the structure of the argument.

Conclusion: The directors should obtain permission from those who made the donations before giving the surplus to other animal shelters.
Premise: The funds were originally donated for the repairs on the Pinecrest Animal Shelter, which have now been completed.

So we're looking for a rule that strengthens the conclusion that the directors should get permission from the donors before using the excess funds for a purpose other than repairing the animal shelter, because the funds were originally donated for that specific purpose.

Answer choice (B) matches this prephrase well "People who solicit charitable donations from the public for a specific cause should spend the funds only on that cause or, if that becomes impossible, should dispose of the funds according to the express wishes of the donors." This answer choice basically says that you shouldn't use donations that were solicited for one specific purpose for another purpose without getting permission from the donors. This strengthens the conclusion that the directors should obtain permission from the donors before giving the excess to other animal shelters.

Answer choice (E) states that "People who contribute money to charitable organizations should be considered to be placing their trust in the directors of those organizations to use the money wisely according to whatever circumstance might arise." This actually kind of weakens the conclusion because it basically says that donors should just trust the organizations they give money to to use the the money as they see fit, in which case the directors would not need to ask them for permission if they want to use it for a different purpose than it was originally intended for.

Always make sure to specifically identify the conclusion and focus on it!

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[ericj_williams]

Hi grunerlokka!

First, I want to clarify that the correct answer to this question is answer choice (B). The part of the question stem about "placing the least restriction on the allocation of funds" ends up being a bit of a distraction here. First and foremost, we need to treat this as a Strengthen-Principle question and there is really only one answer choice that provides us with a principle that will strengthen the conclusion of the stimulus, so there's no need for us to make any decisions between multiple principles that strengthen the conclusion based on how restrictive they are.

With Strengthen-Principle questions, we're often just looking for a rule that abstractly matches the argument in the stimulus. So our first step is always to specifically identify the structure of the argument.

Conclusion: The directors should obtain permission from those who made the donations before giving the surplus to other animal shelters.
Premise: The funds were originally donated for the repairs on the Pinecrest Animal Shelter, which have now been completed.

So we're looking for a rule that strengthens the conclusion that the directors should get permission from the donors before using the excess funds for a purpose other than repairing the animal shelter, because the funds were originally donated for that specific purpose.

Answer choice (B) matches this prephrase well "People who solicit charitable donations from the public for a specific cause should spend the funds only on that cause or, if that becomes impossible, should dispose of the funds according to the express wishes of the donors." This answer choice basically says that you shouldn't use donations that were solicited for one specific purpose for another purpose without getting permission from the donors. This strengthens the conclusion that the directors should obtain permission from the donors before giving the excess to other animal shelters.

Answer choice (E) states that "People who contribute money to charitable organizations should be considered to be placing their trust in the directors of those organizations to use the money wisely according to whatever circumstance might arise." This actually kind of weakens the conclusion because it basically says that donors should just trust the organizations they give money to to use the the money as they see fit, in which case the directors would not need to ask them for permission if they want to use it for a different purpose than it was originally intended for.

Always make sure to specifically identify the conclusion and focus on it!

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

So the testmakers put a restriction on the answer, "places the least restriction" and it's a distraction?

I'm feel like I'm crazy to watch a test put an explicit restriction on an answer, an additional quality it must have to be correct, and then watch it be called a distraction. That just seems so f---ed up on their part.

I feel like the more I study for the test, the less it represents my ability to succeed in law school, and more my ability to understand the mind games that have resulted from the cat and mouse games between the testmakers and the LSAT prep companies.

[Dave Killoran]

So the testmakers put a restriction on the answer, "places the least restriction" and it's a distraction?

I'm feel like I'm crazy to watch a test put an explicit restriction on an answer, an additional quality it must have to be correct, and then watch it be called a distraction. That just seems so f---ed up on their part.

I feel like the more I study for the test, the less it represents my ability to succeed in law school, and more my ability to understand the mind games that have resulted from the cat and mouse games between the testmakers and the LSAT prep companies.

Hey Eric,

I wish test prep could take credit for all the changes they make to the exam, but we can't, and this particular example has nothing to do with the cat-and-mouse game that is sometimes played these days

Instead, take a moment to consider the purpose of this test. They are attempting to determine whether you have the basic skills and abilities to become a good law student. When you are a law student and eventually a lawyer, small details in language matter a lot. A contract can hinge on a single word, and the way ideas are presented--and your ability to interpret and manipulate the language--are critically important. And the law isn't always straightforward, just as contracts aren't always straightforward either; sometimes there are things in written agreements designed to trick you. So, how does the LSAT deal with that real world fact? They test you on how well you read, how well you understand, and certainly how well you see flaws, mistakes, and plain old deception. Is that unfair? I don't think so, it's just how it is.

So, ultimately, you aren't seeing test prep games here, you are seeing reflections of the real world. And this is why we stress that you have to adopt LSAC's viewpoint on all this, because they make the test and set the rules.

And, as an additional point, keep in mind all the things that the LSAT doesn't that are key to your 1L success: perseverance, drive, listening skills, writing ability, and so on. This is just one piece of the puzzle, but an important piece in the eyes of law schools. It takes a while to adjust, but you can do it!

Thanks!

[ericj_williams]

So the testmakers put a restriction on the answer, "places the least restriction" and it's a distraction?

I'm feel like I'm crazy to watch a test put an explicit restriction on an answer, an additional quality it must have to be correct, and then watch it be called a distraction. That just seems so f---ed up on their part.

I feel like the more I study for the test, the less it represents my ability to succeed in law school, and more my ability to understand the mind games that have resulted from the cat and mouse games between the testmakers and the LSAT prep companies.

Hey Eric,

I wish test prep could take credit for all the changes they make to the exam, but we can't, and this particular example has nothing to do with the cat-and-mouse game that is sometimes played these days

Instead, take a moment to consider the purpose of this test. They are attempting to determine whether you have the basic skills and abilities to become a good law student. When you are a law student and eventually a lawyer, small details in language matter a lot. A contract can hinge on a single word, and the way ideas are presented--and your ability to interpret and manipulate the language--are critically important. And the law isn't always straightforward, just as contracts aren't always straightforward either; sometimes there are things in written agreements designed to trick you. So, how does the LSAT deal with that real world fact? They test you on how well you read, how well you understand, and certainly how well you see flaws, mistakes, and plain old deception. Is that unfair? I don't think so, it's just how it is.

So, ultimately, you aren't seeing test prep games here, you are seeing reflections of the real world. And this is why we stress that you have to adopt LSAC's viewpoint on all this, because they make the test and set the rules.

And, as an additional point, keep in mind all the things that the LSAT doesn't that are key to your 1L success: perseverance, drive, listening skills, writing ability, and so on. This is just one piece of the puzzle, but an important piece in the eyes of law schools. It takes a while to adjust, but you can do it!

Thanks!

Dave it does help. And Kelsey I don't mean to be rude. I think you do a great job.

I had not thought of that (contract example). I imagine that in an adversarial proceeding certainly one of the parties may attempt to mislead another, legally, and as a result of lacking the ability to spot it, one party may suffer and have little if any recourse.

The truth is, even with my complaint, I should have done a better job at being able to find fault in the other answers.

This test is so frustrating sometimes.

Thanks for all your help.

[ericj_williams]

So the testmakers put a restriction on the answer, "places the least restriction" and it's a distraction?

I'm feel like I'm crazy to watch a test put an explicit restriction on an answer, an additional quality it must have to be correct, and then watch it be called a distraction. That just seems so f---ed up on their part.

I feel like the more I study for the test, the less it represents my ability to succeed in law school, and more my ability to understand the mind games that have resulted from the cat and mouse games between the testmakers and the LSAT prep companies.

Hey Eric,

I wish test prep could take credit for all the changes they make to the exam, but we can't, and this particular example has nothing to do with the cat-and-mouse game that is sometimes played these days

Instead, take a moment to consider the purpose of this test. They are attempting to determine whether you have the basic skills and abilities to become a good law student. When you are a law student and eventually a lawyer, small details in language matter a lot. A contract can hinge on a single word, and the way ideas are presented--and your ability to interpret and manipulate the language--are critically important. And the law isn't always straightforward, just as contracts aren't always straightforward either; sometimes there are things in written agreements designed to trick you. So, how does the LSAT deal with that real world fact? They test you on how well you read, how well you understand, and certainly how well you see flaws, mistakes, and plain old deception. Is that unfair? I don't think so, it's just how it is.

So, ultimately, you aren't seeing test prep games here, you are seeing reflections of the real world. And this is why we stress that you have to adopt LSAC's viewpoint on all this, because they make the test and set the rules.

And, as an additional point, keep in mind all the things that the LSAT doesn't that are key to your 1L success: perseverance, drive, listening skills, writing ability, and so on. This is just one piece of the puzzle, but an important piece in the eyes of law schools. It takes a while to adjust, but you can do it!

Thanks!

Dave it does help. And Kelsey I don't mean to be rude. I think you do a great job.

I had not thought of that (contract example). I imagine that in an adversarial proceeding certainly one of the parties may attempt to mislead another, legally, and as a result of lacking the ability to spot it, one party may suffer and have little if any recourse.

The truth is, even with my complaint, I should have done a better job at being able to find fault in the other answers.

This test is so frustrating sometimes.

Thanks for all your help.

I should add I still clearly need to work not only on the fundamentals, but recognizing the nuances the testmakers employ for each task, inference, weaken, etc. That'll probably just take more practice.

[Dave Killoran]

That'll probably just take more practice.

No doubt there. It's like learning a new language, and for everyone that takes time! One of the reasons this test is so hard is that everyone comes in thinking they know English and then they treat this exam like they are reading a book or the newspaper. But it's entirely different than that, and it takes a while to adjust to that new reality

Side note: I'm noticing you asking questions about some of the more nuanced and challenging questions, so it seems to me you are looking at the most edgy problems and having trouble there. That's actually a good sign

[Albertlyu]

Hi thank you all for sharing, please can anyone tell me why D is wrong? D says that the donors can not assign responsibility to the directors, which means for the extra money raised, the directors will need to check with the donors.

thank you.

Albert

[thescarletterose]

Can anyone explain why (A) is incorrect? I thought that is the guiding principle (because directors cannot allocate funds that weren't specifically earmarked) for obtaining permission from donors.

I ended up crossing out (B) because I thought obtaining permission is more broad and "the express wishes" of donors is very concrete, with the former merely a courtesy/informing and the latter more asking them of an opinion.... Can you comment on how they are/are not the same in a LSAT context?