Can you please provide an answer explanation for question #6?
#6 - Jablonski, who owns a car dealership, has donated cars
2 posts • Page 1 of 1
Happy to, Taylor, and welcome to our forum! We hope you find it to be a useful tool in your studies.
In this stimulus we find no argument, just a set of facts, and that setup usually leads us to a Must Be True question, which is what happens here. Our answer must be based entirely on the facts given in the stimulus with no outside information allowed, and our answer must be either absolutely certain based on those facts or, in the case of a "most strongly supported" question stem (a subset of Must Be True), have more support from the stimulus than any other answer choice. Those "most strongly supported" answers tend to be highly likely, while the wrong answer typically have no support at all.
What do we know from the stimulus? We know that Jablonski was concerned and wanted to do some good. Her motives were, therefore, at least partly altruistic. She might have had a hidden motive, too, but since the stimulus doesn't bring that up, we won't consider it. We know that she took action on those altruistic feelings - she donated cars. Finally, we know that she derived some benefit from doing so, whether she intended to get that benefit or not. That benefit is that some people have bought cars from her.
So what must be true? We should prephrase the answer, as with any LR question. That is, we should decide for ourselves what the answer should do or say or be, before we look at any answer choices.
My prephrase was something like "sometimes good things happen to good people" or "sometimes, when you do something entirely for someone else, you might get some benefit yourself."
Answer choice A is not supported by the stimulus. Not only do we not know that driver education is the only way to reduce traffic accidents, we don't know if it has that effect at all! The stimulus never said that Jablonski's plan would actually help, but only that she wanted to help and felt that this was one way to do so. We cannot assume that driver education helps at all, and we definitely cannot assume that nothing else would help.
Answer choice B is our winner, and matches the above prephrase nicely. We know that altruistic actions, like Jablonski's, sometimes have positive consequences for the person who did them, because "sometimes" means "at least once", and at least this one time that happened. Jablonski acted altruistically (for the benefit of another rather than for oneself) and she ended up benefiting (she sold some cars).
Answer C is unsupported by the stimulus. We have no information about who tends to benefit from driver education, or if anyone in fact does benefit. This brings in new information and must be rejected.
Answer D is not supported because we have no information in the stimulus about what "usually" happens. It happened one time, and that's all we know about. We don't even know if this worked out to Jablonski's overall best interests - maybe she donated 10 cars and sold just 2, taking a loss to the tune of 8 cars?
Answer E is also without support from the stimulus. We don't know if Jablonski's action was successful, we don't know how broad the support was for it, and we don't know about any similar actions, just this one. Maybe some actions are successful with narrow support, or even none?
Since only answer B has any support from the stimulus (and the support for it is huge and unmistakable), it is the best answer of the five choices presented and it is the credited response.
Was there another answer that you were considering, and if so, what made it attractive to you? If they all looked like equally bad answers to you, what was it about answer B that turned you off? Tell us more about your thoughts on this and we can likely give you more and better feedback.
Again, welcome! I hope that was helpful and that we'll see you here again.
Adam M. Tyson
PowerScore LSAT, GRE, ACT and SAT Instructor
Follow me on Twitter at https://twitter.com/LSATadam
2 posts • Page 1 of 1