#15 - Carla: Professors at public universities should

[moshei24]

The answer was A. I chose D after narrowing it down to A and D.

I could see why it's A if you assume the when David talks about the beneficial effects of research, he's only referring to the advancement of human knowledge. But he says effects in the plural, and Carla said the research also improves professors' teaching.

I could see that maybe you would say that research isn't considered taking time off from teaching, but no where in Carla's argument does she say that. I see that D's wrong because the issue is that they are taking off from teaching, not why they are taking off from teaching according to David. But his issue is that the beneficial effects of research isn't enough of a reason, so why can't it be that maybe there is another function and that makes it okay for them to take off time from teaching, which would make D work somewhat.

Can you please explain this question to me? Thank you!

[Adam Tyson]

In my view, Moshei, D doesn't work because David doesn't take for granted that research is the only reason for taking a leave of absence. Quite the opposite - he's asking "what other reason do you have that would make it worth our limited resources being spent on such leaves?" He's not taking for granted that there is no other reason - he's just saying that Carla hasn't given one. But she has - in addition to the reason of advancing human knowledge, she also gave the second reason that such research improves their teaching. That's why answer A is so much better - it points out, correctly, that he completely ignored that second reason and focused only on the first one.

Adam M. Tyson
PowerScore LSAT Instructor

[moshei24]

But David was asking his questions after he said, "even if you're right about the beneficial effects of research." Carla included the answer to David's question in the beneficial effects of research, but he seems to be saying that even with those beneficial effects, what's your reason? How do we know to assume that when he says even with those beneficial effects that he's not including her second answer? That's what is irking me a little bit about the question. How do we know that he's actually ignoring that part? He does say "even if you're right about the beneficial effects of research," so how do we know that that statement doesn't include the second reason?

Thank you.

[Adam Tyson]

Sorry to take so long - I have been "off duty" for a while, but back now.

I see your point - it's perfectly reasonable to read David's reply as meaning "even if both of the advantages you named are true". However, even so, he goes on to ask "why should we do that?" The problem is that she already answered why - because the professors will become better teachers - and he has failed to acknowledge that. It's as if he didn't hear her at all.

I like to construct parallel arguments sometimes to make sense of it. Imagine you told you that I should eat leafy greens because they give you lasting energy and improve overall health, and imagine that I replied "Even if you are right about the benefits of eating leafy greens, why should I spend some of my food budget on them?" Wouldn't you respond by saying something like "I just told you why - they give you lasting energy and improve your overall health. Weren't you paying attention?" That's what it comes down to - Carla made a good argument, and David essentially ignored it (as opposed to explaining why Carla's reasons aren't good enough).

Hope that helped!

Adam

[moshei24]

Oh, I see. That answer only wouldn't be good if he asked for a better answer as to "why we should do that." Since he just completely asked the question again without specifying that he wants a better answer, it's as if he ignored her? Is that what you're getting at?

Thanks! And getting "off duty" time is always a good thing!