Educator: It has been argued that our professional organization should

Question

Educator: It has been argued that our professional organization should make decisions about important issues—such as raising dues and taking political stands—by a direct vote of all members rather than by having members vote for officers who in turn make the decisions. This would not, however, be the right way to decide these matters, for the vote of any given individual is much more likely to determine organizational policy by influencing the election of an officer than by influencing the result of a direct vote on a single issue.

Which one of the following principles would, if valid, most help to justify the educator’s reasoning?

(A) No procedure for making organizational decisions should allow one individual’s vote to weigh more than that of another.

(B) Outcomes of organizational elections should be evaluated according to their benefit to the organization as a whole, not according to the fairness of the methods by which they are produced.

(C) Important issues facing organizations should be decided by people who can devote their full time to mastering the information relevant to the issues.

(D) An officer of an organization should not make a particular decision on an issue unless a majority of the organization’s members would approve of that decision.

(E) An organization’s procedures for making organizational decisions should maximize the power of each member of the organization to influence the decisions made.

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT

This argument, like usual, makes no sense. The conclusion, paraphrased, is, “We shouldn’t have direct democracy, we should have representative democracy instead.” The evidence is, “The vote of any given individual is more likely to determine organizational policy by influencing the election of an officer than by influencing the result of a direct vote on a single issue.” I’d like to take issue with that premise. Why would a vote for a politician do more to influence an issue than a vote on a specific issue would? But, we should probably let that issue go because it’s a  premise , not a  conclusion , and we can only argue with conclusions.

The question asks us to “justify” the reasoning, which means “prove the conclusion.” So we need to connect the evidence to the conclusion. The missing link seems something like, “We should pick a system of government that gives individuals the greatest impact on organizational policy.” If that’s true, and if the (arguably bullshit) premise is true, then the conclusion is true. Note that I hate this argument, but I still think our prediction will be the correct answer.

A) It’s not about one person vs. another person. Not what we’re looking for.

B) It’s not about  benefit  to the organization. It’s about each individual having maximum impact on policy. This isn’t it.

C) No, it’s not about what type of people should be elected. This answer is a zillion miles away from a correct answer because it doesn’t come close to connecting the premise, as given, to the conclusion that the argument actually made. Answer C is completely nonsensical. If you chose C, you should email me or call me so that I can give you a couple basic examples of what LSAT logic is supposed to be all about.

D) It’s not about what individual officers should or shouldn’t do. No way.

E) Yes, this is what we’ve been looking for. If E is true, and if the premise is true, then the conclusion would have to be true.

So E is our answer.

PyjamaScientist · Answer

Option (E)  . I took 2:17 mins.

The aim of the passage is to imply that the decisions in an organisation be taken with equal weightage given to all, and since the precedure of choosing "officers" entails disproportionate weightage to individual vote, it is not the right way.
 
Option (E) says,  An organization’s procedures for making organizational decisions should maximize the power of each member of the organization to influence the decisions made. 
 "maximize the power of each member"  means that the weightage of each vote be put to equal for any organisational decision to be made. This statement strenghtens our argument by explicitly stating this implied message behind the Educator's argument.

carouselambra · Answer

Aim: To strengthen

Conclusion(Author's opinion here) : This would not, however, be the right way to decide these matters, for the vote of any given individual is much more likely to determine organizational policy by influencing the election of an officer than by influencing the result of a direct vote on a single issue.

Basically, we need to prove that election of an officer is better than direct vote of the individual.
Now think. There has to be SOME factor/reason WHY the above condition is better in author's head.

(A) No procedure for making organizational decisions should allow one individual’s vote to weigh more than that of another.
This is not related to the conclusion. Even if (A) were true, which individual's opinion weighs more than the other- we do not know.

(B) Outcomes of organizational elections should be evaluated according to their benefit to the organization as a whole, not according to the fairness of the methods by which they are produced.
Fairness of the methods is not discussed and far away from the conclusion.

(C) Important issues facing organizations should be decided by people who can devote their full time to mastering the information relevant to the issues.
Again, not related to the conclusion. We do not know who are the people devoting their time to the issues and how they are elected.

(D) An officer of an organization should not make a particular decision on an issue unless a majority of the organization’s members would approve of that decision.
Ok - but who is the majority? Elected officials or direct voters?

(E) An organization’s procedures for making organizational decisions should maximize the power of each member of the organization to influence the decisions made.
If the procedure maximizes the power of EACH member of the organization, this would invariably mean, the more representation an elected officer has, the more power he has. The weight of each vote will matter.
Correct.

rvgmat12 · Answer

From Powerscore:

We are asked to strengthen the argument, and that means we need to make the conclusion more likely to be true. The conclusion here is that a direct vote on issues would not be the right way to decide matters. The evidence is the claim that voting for officers is better, somehow making one's vote more likely to influence policy. So, we need an answer that adds some additional support for the claim that direct voting is not the right way.

Answer A does nothing to help that, as there is nothing in the stimulus about making any one vote count more than any other one vote. It's just irrelevant. Even if we interpret it to mean that having officers vote instead of direct voting is somehow giving those officers' votes extra weight, that would actually weaken the argument, suggesting that direct voting might be better after all.

Answer B is likewise irrelevant. What does fairness or outcome have anything to do with the argument? The argument is strictly about maximizing the value of your vote by selecting officers rather than voting directly, with that maximization apparently being better. Evaluating outcomes has nothing to do with which method is right.

Answer C might appear to strengthen the argument a little, but only if you offer it a little help. If important issues should be decided by those who can devote full time to them, does that mean it should be done by officers rather than by direct vote? Only if you assume that officers have that kind of time on their hands and non-officers don't. But don't assume anything that isn't given to you! Maybe officers are very busy people who cannot devote their full time to the issues, but non-officers might include a bunch of retired people with nothing but time on their hands? We just can't know from this stimulus that "devote their full time" means officers, so we can't pick this answer. Don't help the answers out - they need to stand or fall on their own.

Answer D gives no help to the "direct voting isn't right" argument, and might even weaken that claim by indicating that officers really can't exercise their own judgment all that much. We want to strengthen the idea that direct voting isn't right, and telling us that officers may have their hands a little bit tied does nothing to add to that.

That leaves our winner, answer E, which is the only one that tells us that maximizing influence is an important organizational goal. If that's true, and if direct voting doesn't accomplish that goal while another method does, then it supports the claim that direct voting is not the right way.

VIGHNESHKAMATH · Answer

Often in CR, test makers will confuse you between the necessary condition and sufficient condition.

Option C could be a ''sufficient condition'', but Option E is necessarily a ''necessary condition''

Thus, Option E most helps to justify the reasoning or a kind of assumption for the argument.

Regards
Vighnesh Kamath

playthegame · Answer

Thanks I marked C on my first attempt, tough question I spent about 2:19 mins on this question during a quiz. I think the process of elimination works best, somehow I should have read option E more completely to understand how this is supporting. I also assumed that the "people" in option C meant officers which may or may not be true.

Thanks.

temporeincidunt · Answer

Correct answer: E  
  Why E is right:  
 
  Educator’s argument:  voting for officers is better than direct voting  because a single vote is  more likely to influence outcomes via officer elections .  
  This relies on the principle that the  best procedure maximizes each member’s influence .  
  E explicitly states this principle, directly supporting the reasoning.
   
  Why the others are wrong:  
 
   A:  Focuses on equal weighting, not influence.  
   B:  Focuses on overall benefit, not individual influence.  
   C:  Focuses on officer expertise, not voting influence.  
   D:  Requires officer decisions to reflect majority, unrelated to maximizing voter influence.

Educator: It has been argued that our professional organization should

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Educator: It has been argued that our professional organization should

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards