When a lawmaker spoke out against a research grant awarded to a profes

Question

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.

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

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.

SaiPavanR · Answer

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.

sivatx2 · Answer

We need to look for an option that would convince the chair person's refusal is correct. This means that the lawmaker is need not be correct or be an expert in the field, but have the rights to question the grant awarded. We need to find an option that will give the lawmaker the rights to do so.

(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. 
 The question is whether the refusal of the chair person is right? This does not substantiate the chair's action. Eliminate

(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. 
 The obligation of the chair is irrelevant to the argument. We are talking about lawmaker has the rights to interfere or not. Eliminate

(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. 
 This is inline with our analysis and gives the proof lawmaker plays the role of a watchdog to protect/safeguard and hence has the right to question/interfere with the way funds has been used. Keep

(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. 
 This does not substantiate why the lawmaker can interfere in the matter of research funds. Eliminate

(E) Academic institutions have the same responsibility as military institutions have to spend public money wisely. 
 The responsibility may are may not be same. But this does not strengthen or weaken the argument on why lawmakers have the rights to be critical on the research funds. Eliminate

So C is the best answer choice.

unraveled · Answer

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?

What may have made department chair to not sign the proposal or give supporting reasons to not do so at least??

(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. - WRONG. Looks more of ideologically based. True may be in real life but not here.

(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. - WRONG. Again may be true in real life.

(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. - CORRECT.

(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. - WRONG. Irrelevant. It leads us in a different direction not related to passage, at least based on reasoning.

(E) Academic institutions have the same responsibility as military institutions have to spend public money wisely. - WRONG. True in real life like A and B. But even if that's sidelined, we need to fill the gap it leaves. Not the best of justifications it suggests to give.

Answer C.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot:

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

This post was generated automatically.

When a lawmaker spoke out against a research grant awarded to a profes

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

When a lawmaker spoke out against a research grant awarded to a profes

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