Q3 - When a lawmaker spoke out

[jamiejames]

Could someone explain the correct and incorrect answers? thank you!

[timmydoeslsat]

This a question stem that wants us to give a principle that will support the department chair's refusal to sign the letter from the grounds she gives.

Our stimulus tells us that this department chair refuses to sign it due to her writing a letter that applauded this same legislator when he publicized a situation with the military.

We also know that the dept chair privately approved of this project (the psychology one).

So we need something to help justify her position of refusing to sign the letter.

We would want something that says if she supported something similar with the same legislator, she should not sign a letter of protest in another matter.

Answer choices:

A) We do not know that the department chair has not given careful consideration in these two cases.

B) Does not tie into justifying her not signing the protest letter from the grounds she gives. That is part of the question stem.

C) This does involve the grounds she gave. She did praise a lawmaker for playing a watchdog role in one case. This principle leads us to conclude that she should not criticize the lawmaker for attempting to play a watchdog role in another case that involves her interests.

D) Not a principle to justify not signing from the grounds she gives.

E) Does not bridge the gap to reach that the department chair should not sign the letter. We do not know that this proposal is a senseless expenditure like the one in the military was. Does not give us justification to ~sign letter.