Q2 - A University Psychology Department

[Acing LSAT]

The logic here is:

Since the textbook recieved the highest ratings -> The books were chosen becasue of their acedemic value and not because of the donation.

We are looking to weaken that connection.

(A) Does that. It gives us a reason why the committee chosing the books is connected to the donation.

(B) Does not address the gap.

(C) Could be temping. But is out of scope. It does not weaken the connection between the award and why the book was chosen. What they used last year has no bearing on the issue.

(D) trying to mislead you by mixing info. There is no reason to think the donation would effect her more if she was on the committee.

(E) Also temping, but still does not indicate the donation was a factor in the committees choice.

[rinagoldfield]

GREAT ACING, Acing LSAT. I agree with your every word.

The department chair’s position is summarized as:

The textbook committee gave the textbook its highest rating

-->

The textbook was chosen for academic rather than financial reasons

Notice the term shift from "highest rating" to "academic reasons." The department chair’s argument overlooks the possibility that high ratings might reflect non-academic considerations (such as financial incentives).

We want to weaken the argument; in other words, we want to make that gap bigger or more apparent.

(A) does exactly that! It rewords the gap identified above.
(B) is... so what? This answer choice supports the department’s choice of textbook, but it doesn’t address the (academic or financial) rationale behind the choice.
(C), (D), and (E) are irrelevant. Who cares what textbook was used last year? We are concerned with this year. Who cares if the department chair serves on the committee? Her position doesn’t effect why the book was chosen. Who cares if the textbook company doesn’t routinely make donations? We only need to know that the company made a donation this year.