Mary to Jamal: You acknowledge that as the legitimate owner

Question

Mary to Jamal: You acknowledge that as the legitimate owner of this business I have the legal right to sell it whenever I wish. But also you claim that because loyal employees will suffer if I sell it, I therefore have no right to do so. Obviously, your statements taken together are absurd.

Mary’s reasoning is most vulnerable to the criticism that she

(A) overlooks the possibility that when Jamal claims that she has no right to sell the business, he simply means she has no right to do so at this time
(B) overlooks the possibility that her employees also have rights related to the sale of the business
(C) provides no evidence for the claim that she does have a right to sell the business
(D) overlooks the possibility that Jamal is referring to two different kinds of right
(E) attacks Jamal’s character rather than his argument

Source:    LSAT PrepTest 61 - 2010

siddhantvarma · Answer

Mary's reasoning addresses two claims made by Jamal:
 
 She has the legal right to sell the business. 
 Because loyal employees would suffer, she has no right to sell it.

Mary concludes that these two statements, taken together, are absurd. However, the key issue is the  type of right  being discussed. Jamal could be referring to a  moral right  in his second statement (i.e., she shouldn't sell because it would harm employees), while the first statement refers to her  legal right . These are two different kinds of rights, and Mary overlooks this distinction.

A) Overlooks the possibility that when Jamal claims that she has no right to sell the business, he simply means she has no right to do so at this time.  
This suggests a temporal argument (selling now vs. later), but Jamal’s argument focuses on the effect on employees, not timing.

B) Overlooks the possibility that her employees also have rights related to the sale of the business.  
This introduces a new concept of employee rights, which isn't addressed by either Mary or Jamal. It doesn't directly respond to her reasoning.

C) Provides no evidence for the claim that she does have a right to sell the business.  
This is not the flaw in her reasoning. Mary assumes her legal right is already established, so the argument isn't about proving it.

D) Overlooks the possibility that Jamal is referring to two different kinds of right.  
This is the correct answer and aligns with our pre-thinking. Jamal may be referring to a  moral right  when he says she "has no right to sell" due to employee harm, whereas Mary is focused on her  legal right . The flaw in her reasoning is not recognizing the distinction between legal and moral rights.

E) Attacks Jamal’s character rather than his argument.  
Mary does not attack Jamal's character; she is attacking his argument.

The correct answer is   D) overlooks the possibility that Jamal is referring to two different kinds of right.

Mary to Jamal: You acknowledge that as the legitimate owner

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

Mary to Jamal: You acknowledge that as the legitimate owner

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