June 2007 LSAT, III, #4

Question #4, Section 3 of the June 2007 LSAT mentions motivational posters, which made me think of the far-more-awesome de-motivational poster, so I figured I'd make a de-motivational poster for my LSAT students. I proudly present you with this:

It's probably bad for business, but I honestly don't give a shit. If I can talk you out of law school, then you should never have been there in the first place. A recent private seminar student of mine kicked ass on the LSAT, then told me that he was taking an additional year before applying because he wanted an additional year to pursue Plan A, which is music--he's a music teacher by trade, and has musical aspirations. Law school is Plan B for him at best, and he's decided to wait at least a year before applying. My heart swells with pride. If law is your passion, then by all means go for it. Is law your passion?

Law is not my passion. Teaching is my passion. I was born to help people 1) kick ass on the LSAT and 2) make good decisions about whether or not to go to law school. I'm good at it, I love it, and I get paid for it. If you can say those three things about your current job, or about any other job, then don't go to law school. But if you're still here, and you suspect that law might meet those three criteria, then I'm here to help you with the LSAT. Let's get it on.

The argument basically says "because a certain goal is already being achieved, it's not possible to make a new plan that would also work in the direction of this goal." This argument can fuck right off. This is like saying "because you've stopped eating donuts, which has already helped you lose weight, stopping eating cheeseburgers is unlikely to benefit your weight loss." That's obviously stupid. Just because you're already doing well at something does NOT mean that you can't do even better. Pushups will build your pecs, even if your pecs are already huge from the bench press.

The question asks "The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument"... fill in the blank. Well, I've already filled in this blank, way before looking at the answer choices. This is the key to the LSAT--you must CRITICIZE and ATTACK the horrible nonsense that the test is guaranteed to put in front of you.

GET PISSED OFF. The madder you get, the better you're likely to do on the LSAT.

A) Irrelevant. The argument is only about companies that have already started using the posters (which, as a group, already have productive workers.) Companies that have not started to use the posters are not subject of the argument, and are irrelevant.

B) No. "Corporations in general" aren't relevant either. I'm looking for an answer that basically says "our workers are already productive, but we can always do better."

C) No, "similar beneficial effects" aren't relevant. We're not looking for "similar beneficial effects" (such as, for example, the comedic effect of having these cheesy motivational posters around.) We're looking for "these posters will make our workers even more productive.

D)  No, productivity is the only relevant factor to this argument, since the conclusion is only about the intended purpose of increasing motivation.

E)  Boom. This is precisely what I was looking for. A-D didn't titillate me in the slightest, since I had already made up my mind before even looking at the answer choices. Our answer is E, because it best identifies the major flaw in the argument.