Logical reasoning PrepTest 138 · Section 2 · Question 4

Incorrect. While this answer highlights that the profits belong to the owners, it doesn't establish that taking those profits and donating them consists of stealing, as it doesn't establish that the owners don't approve of the charitable donations, and it doesn't connect those donations directly to stealing.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
Robin Hood - Stole from the rich, gave to the poor. But emphasis on stealing.
Company managers - Donate corporate profits to charities, but those profits aren't theirs—they belong to the company's owners.

Answer Anticipation:
This question stem asks us to weaken the analogy. Analogies are specific types of comparisons, and comparisons are weakened by highlighting differences between the things being compared.

Here, the comparison is between Robin Hood and corporate managers. The former stole from the rich to give to the poor. Let's match up these elements to see where there's a gap we can highlight in the correct answer.

First, are the corporate managers stealing from the rich? Well, they're giving away the profits of a company's owners. Let's say that it's unlikely the LSAT is going to question whether owners are rich and focus on the first part—stealing. There's no indication that the owner's aren't aware of this charitable giving and approve of it—it is, after all, done each year. So one potential answer could highlight that the managers aren't "stealing"—they're giving the money away with permission.

Second, are they giving the money to the poor? That money is going to charities, but there's no indication which charities, so there may be a gap here. However, this just feels less likely than the first gap, so let's be aware of it while still focusing our analysis of the answer choices on the "stealing" part.

Answer Explanation:
If the owners tacitly consent to the donations, then it can't be considered stealing or analogous to stealing, as that requires a lack of consent. This answer weakens the analogy by highlighting a relevant difference.

Key Takeaway:
Analogies are special types of comparisons. When one shows up in an argument, make sure you understand how the elements line up, and determine what similarities/differences will likely play into the correct answer.

Incorrect. The analogy involves donating the company's profits, so this answer doesn't address it.

Incorrect. The analogy involves the people giving the money away, not those receiving it, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. The analogy involves the people giving the money away, so where charities solicit donations from is out of scope.