- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8916
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Thu May 19, 2016 5:05 pm
#25152
Complete Question Explanation
(See the complete passage discussion here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=10362)
The correct answer choice is (E)
This question requires us to identify an action that would be LEAST appropriately described as a rational response to economic incentives and disincentives. In other words, the correct answer choice must describe an irrational decision to commit a crime, undertaken in spite of clear evidence that the expected utility from committing a crime does not exceed the expected utility from activity that is lawful.
Answer choice (A): Since the waiter considers it unlikely that he will be caught and penalized for concealing his tip income, his actions would be considered a rational response to a low economic disincentive. This answer choice is incorrect.
Answer choice (B): The motorist’s decision to avoid speeding is a rational response to a high economic disincentive, given the high chance of getting caught and the severe penalty for speeding. This answer choice is incorrect.
Answer choice (C): The industrialist’s decision to pollute is a rational choice, because the cost of treatment exceeds the fine for polluting. Since the expected utility from committing the crime does exceed the expected utility from the lawful activity, committing the crime would be a rational choice. This answer choice is incorrect.
Answer choice (D): It is unclear whether soliciting bribes is a rational choice. On the one hand, the economic conditions in the impoverished country suggest that there is a high incentive to commit the crime. On the other, it is entirely possible that there is a high risk of prosecution and/or that the penalty for soliciting bribes is also high. Given the information available, it is impossible to conduct a proper cost/benefit analysis of the decision to commit the crime.
Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. The decision to assault a former supervisor is clearly an irrational choice, because the expected utility of doing so is nonexistent (the worker is unlikely to get his job back). Although the worker does believe that the dismissal was unfair, her actions are impulsive and cannot be described as a rational economic choice.
(See the complete passage discussion here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=10362)
The correct answer choice is (E)
This question requires us to identify an action that would be LEAST appropriately described as a rational response to economic incentives and disincentives. In other words, the correct answer choice must describe an irrational decision to commit a crime, undertaken in spite of clear evidence that the expected utility from committing a crime does not exceed the expected utility from activity that is lawful.
Answer choice (A): Since the waiter considers it unlikely that he will be caught and penalized for concealing his tip income, his actions would be considered a rational response to a low economic disincentive. This answer choice is incorrect.
Answer choice (B): The motorist’s decision to avoid speeding is a rational response to a high economic disincentive, given the high chance of getting caught and the severe penalty for speeding. This answer choice is incorrect.
Answer choice (C): The industrialist’s decision to pollute is a rational choice, because the cost of treatment exceeds the fine for polluting. Since the expected utility from committing the crime does exceed the expected utility from the lawful activity, committing the crime would be a rational choice. This answer choice is incorrect.
Answer choice (D): It is unclear whether soliciting bribes is a rational choice. On the one hand, the economic conditions in the impoverished country suggest that there is a high incentive to commit the crime. On the other, it is entirely possible that there is a high risk of prosecution and/or that the penalty for soliciting bribes is also high. Given the information available, it is impossible to conduct a proper cost/benefit analysis of the decision to commit the crime.
Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. The decision to assault a former supervisor is clearly an irrational choice, because the expected utility of doing so is nonexistent (the worker is unlikely to get his job back). Although the worker does believe that the dismissal was unfair, her actions are impulsive and cannot be described as a rational economic choice.