Q17 - A contract, whether expressed

[lhermary]

I picked C because I didn't like any of the other answers

Why is B right here? Why does it only partially conform?

[timmydoeslsat]

I picked C because I didn't like any of the other answers

Why is B right here? Why does it only partially conform?

For this question, we are looking to articulate what flaw is committed in the stimulus.

We are told the definition of a contract, whether expressed or unexpressed, exists when 2 parties engage with each other for both parties to transfer benefits.

The stimulus then concludes that when an artist accepts public funds for support, the artist creates an unexpressed contract between him or her and the public. And the public can expect to benefit from the artist's work.

Do you see the gap?

We know that the artist is benefiting from the acceptance of public funds. However, we do not know that this was an engagement of two entities to exchange benefits.

We know that one of the two entities will be benefiting, but we do not know necessarily that both will.

Definition:

2 Entities engage each other to transfer benefits ---> Contract exists

We do not have enough information to warrant us concluding that we have met the sufficient condition that allows us to infer that a contract exists.

So, as answer choice B states, we see that some parts of the artist's situation conforms to the definition in reaching the existence of a contract, but it is simply not all of the way there.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Nice explanation Timmy! Can I add that the relationship you pointed out

Definition:

2 Entities engage each other to transfer benefits ---> Contract exists

is created with the word "when" in the stimulus. This indicates a sufficient condition, so we know we're dealing with a conditional relationship as you've got correctly noted above.

The evidence of the argument meets part of the sufficient condition, but not all of it, so attempting to conclude the necessary condition - that a contract exists - is a bit premature. Best expressed in answer choice (B).

Let's go through the incorrect answers:

(A) is unsupported. The argument does not try to justify a rule of conduct, but rather attempts to apply a rule of conduct - which implicitly suggests the author agrees with it. But no justification for it is offered.
(C) is unsupported. Why is the matter of a relationship between an artist and a city something needs to be judged on a case-by-case basis?
(D) vaguely refers to a "parts to whole" issue. But this argument is not moving from a characteristic of individuals to a characteristic of a group.
(E) is unsupported. The argument is not confusing facts with beliefs - otherwise characterized as "an appeal to an opinion."

Hope that helps!

[Turismo1]

^ thanks for the explanation.


I chose B, but answer choice (C) confused me because i couldn't figure out a situation where that answer choice would be correct. could you explain this answer choice a little bit further?

[JohnS553]

Got B. But am curious about the flaw type in the stimulus. I read it as a false analogy flaw. Anyone else?

[ohthatpatrick]

Yeah, that seems apt. We're essentially nervous about whether an artist accepting public funds is analogous to "two parties engaging with each other for the reciprocal transfer of benefits".

Don't feel like every time you see a Flaw question, though, that the flaw should have a name.

There are plenty of one-off Flaw questions that just create a unique problem that doesn't necessarily have a "type" associated with it.