Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
26 Oct 2021, 01:30
Kudos
Bookmarks
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
25%
(medium)
Question Stats:
82% (02:12) correct
18%
(02:23)
wrong
based on 214
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
When a lawmaker spoke out against a research grant awarded to a professor in a university’s psychology department as a foolish expenditure of public money, other professors in that department drafted a letter protesting the lawmaker’s interference in a field in which he was not trained. The chair of the psychology department, while privately endorsing the project, refused to sign the protest letter on the ground that she had previously written a letter applauding the same legislator when he publicized a senseless expenditure by the country’s military.
Which one of the following principles, if established, provides the strongest justification for the department chair’s refusal, on the ground she gives, to sign the protest letter?
(A) A person should not publicly criticize the actions of a lawmaker in different cases without giving careful consideration to the circumstances of each particular case.
(B) The chair of an academic department has an obligation to ensure that public funds allocated to support projects within that department are spent wisely.
(C) A person who has praised a lawmaker for playing a watchdog role in one case should not criticize the lawmaker for attempting to play a watchdog role in another case that involves the person’s professional interests.
(D) Since academic institutions accept public funds but do not pay taxes, a representative of an academic institution should not publicly pass judgment on the actions of government officials.
(E) Academic institutions have the same responsibility as military institutions have to spend public money wisely.
Which one of the following principles, if established, provides the strongest justification for the department chair’s refusal, on the ground she gives, to sign the protest letter?
(A) A person should not publicly criticize the actions of a lawmaker in different cases without giving careful consideration to the circumstances of each particular case.
(B) The chair of an academic department has an obligation to ensure that public funds allocated to support projects within that department are spent wisely.
(C) A person who has praised a lawmaker for playing a watchdog role in one case should not criticize the lawmaker for attempting to play a watchdog role in another case that involves the person’s professional interests.
(D) Since academic institutions accept public funds but do not pay taxes, a representative of an academic institution should not publicly pass judgment on the actions of government officials.
(E) Academic institutions have the same responsibility as military institutions have to spend public money wisely.
27 Oct 2021, 01:15
Kudos
Bookmarks
Bunuel
EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT
I think we should attack the chair of the psychology department here. Basically, the chair wants to sign the letter, and “privately endorses” the protest, but won’t sign the letter because she knows she will be exposed as a hypocrite. Why is she a hypocrite? Well, she thought it was a good idea when the legislator publicized some arguably wasteful military expenditures. In fact, she thought it was such a good idea that she wrote a letter praising the legislator! But now she wishes she could criticize the same lawmaker for publicizing some arguable waste in her own department? The thing that pisses me off here is that she “privately endorses” the protest. She’s not being logically consistent. “Well, I thought it was a good idea when the legislator went after military waste, but now that he’s going after my own department, I think he should mind his own business.” Funny how that happens, huh?
Anyway, she’s refusing to sign the letter. We’re asked to find a principle that would support her decision not to sign. The principle she seems to be operating under is, “I have to cover my own ass here. Rather than support my department, I have to abstain from taking a public position because my previous public position (the letter about the military waste) would conflict with the letter I am asked to sign.” Let’s see if we can find an answer that says something like that.
A) No, it’s possible that the chair has given lots of careful consideration to each particular case. We definitely weren’t told that she hasn’t. So this principle probably doesn’t even apply to the chair’s decision. We need an answer that we know will help her.
B) This sounds like something that should be true in real life, but it’s irrelevant to the issue of the chair’s decision not to sign the letter.
C) This is close. My problem with this answer is that the chair does seem to be criticizing the lawmaker privately (the chair “privately endorses” the protest). Still, this answer would at least support the chair’s decision not to publicly criticize the lawmaker, so I suppose it gives her justification for not signing the letter. I still think she’s a hypocrite, but we don’t need to like our client. All we’re doing here is trying to find her some support. We could pass on this answer if we found something better, or pick it if we don’t.
D) No, if this were the principle then the chair should never have written her first letter. She “passed judgment” in a positive way when she praised the lawmaker’s earlier watchdog efforts. I don’t think this gives her very good “support” because it would show that she’s already acted inconsistently with the rule.
E) Nah. Like B, this answer applies to the issue of how money should actually be spent, which is not the issue we’re working on. The issue we’re working on is “make it correct for her not to sign the letter.”
The rule our client needs is C, because it will support her decision not to sign in this case, without making her look bad for her previous actions.
General Discussion
26 Oct 2021, 09:23
Kudos
Bookmarks
[quote="Bunuel"]When a lawmaker spoke out against a research grant awarded to a professor in a university’s psychology department as a foolish expenditure of public money, other professors in that department drafted a letter protesting the lawmaker’s interference in a field in which he was not trained. The chair of the psychology department, while privately endorsing the project, refused to sign the protest letter on the ground that she had previously written a letter applauding the same legislator when he publicized a senseless expenditure by the country’s military.
Which one of the following principles, if established, provides the strongest justification for the department chair’s refusal, on the ground she gives, to sign the protest letter?
(A) A person should not publicly criticize the actions of a lawmaker in different cases without giving careful consideration to the circumstances of each particular case.
(B) The chair of an academic department has an obligation to ensure that public funds allocated to support projects within that department are spent wisely.
(C) A person who has praised a lawmaker for playing a watchdog role in one case should not criticize the lawmaker for attempting to play a watchdog role in another case that involves the person’s professional interests.
(D) Since academic institutions accept public funds but do not pay taxes, a representative of an academic institution should not publicly pass judgment on the actions of government officials.
(E) Academic institutions have the same responsibility as military institutions have to spend public money wisely.
I am stuck between C and E. Picked E.
C is stating some unsaid rules.
Which one of the following principles, if established, provides the strongest justification for the department chair’s refusal, on the ground she gives, to sign the protest letter?
(A) A person should not publicly criticize the actions of a lawmaker in different cases without giving careful consideration to the circumstances of each particular case.
(B) The chair of an academic department has an obligation to ensure that public funds allocated to support projects within that department are spent wisely.
(C) A person who has praised a lawmaker for playing a watchdog role in one case should not criticize the lawmaker for attempting to play a watchdog role in another case that involves the person’s professional interests.
(D) Since academic institutions accept public funds but do not pay taxes, a representative of an academic institution should not publicly pass judgment on the actions of government officials.
(E) Academic institutions have the same responsibility as military institutions have to spend public money wisely.
I am stuck between C and E. Picked E.
C is stating some unsaid rules.
