Logical reasoning PrepTest 126 · Section 4 · Question 15

Incorrect. There's only one premise here—that technological innovation is driven by greed/selfishness/a desire to sell—and that can definitely be true.

Incorrect. The argument assumes that a technology motivated by commercial viability can't benefit society as a whole, not that technology that is commercially viable can't benefit society as a whole. A subtle but key difference that invalidates this answer.

Incorrect. This answer discusses the motives from the stimulus, but it mentions that the goals aren't necessarily reached, not that the goals prevent the outcome from serving different goals.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Innovators are driven by greed rather than helping society, so new technologies can't benefit society as a whole.

Answer Anticipation:
This question brings up a concept that is frequently mentioned in LSAT questions and almost always key to the question when it shows up—motivations. A person's motives don't necessarily align with the actions they take or the outcomes of those actions.

Here, the stimulus uses a selfish motive on the part of technology innovators to support a conclusion that those technologies won't benefit society. However, even if the motive behind the innovations are selfish, that doesn't mean the outcomes won't be beneficial to society generally. Any answer that highlights this jump could correctly describe the flaw in this argument.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the assumption of the argument and is thus correct. The argument assumes that something motivated by a desire for personal gain can't benefit society. In other words, unless an action is motivated by a desire to help society, it can't—as this answer states.

Key Takeaway:
Arguments on the LSAT frequently deal with the issue of motives behind actions. When they do, they frequently assume that motive, action, and outcome are all aligned. However, people frequently take actions that are at odds with their motives (humans are irrational!), and the outcome frequently cuts against the motives.

Incorrect. There's no premise about what people should or shouldn't do, just what they do, so this answer doesn't properly describe the argument.