June 2007 LSAT, III, #6

Section 3, #6, of the June 2007 LSAT is about a car dealer who donates cars to driver education programs "because she wanted to do something to encourage better driving in young drivers." This is just about the biggest load of bullshit I have ever heard. Car dealers do things for one reason, and one reason only: TO SELL MORE CARS. As it turns out, huge shocker, "some members of the community have shown their support for this action by purchasing cars from Jablonski's dealership." What a bunch of suckers.

The question asks "Which one of the following propositions is best illustrated by the passage?" I'll try to predict it before looking at the answer choices. I think a good answer would be "Sometimes you can pretend to be altruistic even when you're an obvious sleazeball, and idiots will believe you and do nice things for you. Because people are just THAT stupid." Let's see:

A)  The given facts do not say that driver education is the ONLY way to reduce traffic accidents. Driver education is the only way that happens to have been mentioned here, but that doesn't mean there aren't also a million other better ways. This is not even close to a good answer.

B)  Yeah, this is probably it. I personally don't believe that Jablonski was even being altruistic in the first place, but if you do believe she was being altruistic, then the fact that people ended up buying cars from her as a result of her "altruistic" actions definitely qualifies as a "positive consequence." I hope C-E all suck so I can pick B.

C)  What? No. This answer is just as bad as A, for the same reason. Just because young drivers are ONE group that can benefit doesn't mean they are the MOST LIKELY group to benefit.

D)  This is almost certain to be true in real life. But the LSAT is NOT about what's true in real life. It's about answering the question that has been asked. On this question, we're asked to identify an answer choice that has been "illustrated by the passage." It's true that something good happened to Jablonski in this one instance, but that doesn't illustrate the proposition that it's USUALLY in one's best interest to do something good for others. Like A and C, this answer is way too bold... the given facts simply don't prove this to be true.

E)  What? No way. The facts don't even mention "broad community support." We have "some members of the community" supporting an action, but that's not necessarily the same thing as "broad" support. And even if it was, all we would have is ONE INSTANCE of support for an action, which wouldn't mean that support is necessary for EVERY successful action. Not close. Our answer is B, because the given facts are a clear illustration of an "altruistic" action resulting in benefits to the actor.