Q4 - Principle: the executive in a given company...

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Sure!

The principle is organized with the language cue "if."

If the consultant has business interests with the company the executive manages, then the executive will be overcompensated.

We're leaving out the issue of the consultant advising on the executive's compensation and focussing on the outcome. If we need to go back for clarity on the details later, we can.

In answer choice (D), the argument concludes that the president of Troskco is probably overpaid. That's the right outcome. Let's see if we also get the right trigger: consultant advising on the compensation has other business interests with the company. Yep, that's in answer choice (D) too.

Incorrect Answers
(A) uses the wrong evidence and arrives at a conclusion that is too strong.
(B) uses the wrong evidence.
(C) negates the logic in the principle.
(E) negates the logic in the principle and arrives at a conclusion that is too strong.

#officialexplanation

[priyanka.krishnamurthy]

Hi -- could anyone break down this one in terms of formal logic? I did pick D, but looking back on it I want to make sure I eliminated E for the right reason (illegal reversal).

Thanks in advance!

[snoopy]

Hi -- could anyone break down this one in terms of formal logic? I did pick D, but looking back on it I want to make sure I eliminated E for the right reason (illegal reversal).

Thanks in advance!

Principle: if consultant has business interests with the company ---> company exec probably overpaid

A: Receives salary and benefits almost 40x more than average employee --> def overpaid. Eliminate because doesn't mention consultants + degree of confidence (definitely vs probably) in the exec being overpaid
B: total annual comp package determined when company's profits were all-time high ---> prob overpaid. Eliminate because doesn't mention consultants + have to assume that the comp package was influenced by company profits (could have been influenced by labor market)
C: total comp package determined by BoD who did not use consultant ---> prob not overpaid. Eliminate because illegal negation
D: BoD determined comp package by using a consultant who has other contracts of that same company (Troskco) ---> prob overpaid. [Correct.
E: BoD determined comp package by using a consultant who does not contracts of that same company (Troskco) ---> prob not overpaid. Eliminate because of illegal reversal. (contrapositive would be "prob overpaid -> consultant has business interests")