I don't see how it's an act of altruism to donate a car to a drivers Ed program because one is alarmed by car wreck statistics. Considering the person is aligning with their own interest ( a desire to see car accidents decline) than it seems that donating the cars was an act of self interest, not altruistic. Altruism demands selfless service to others, not just service to others. In order to abdicate self interest while serving others it seems the person donating cars should be donating those cars to high risk drivers with no training?

I think your definition of altruism is a bit too restrictive.

By your logic, no act would qualify as altruistic. Giving food to the homeless would just be acting upon one's own desire (the desire to see the homeless fed). You can see how this would apply to pretty much any act.


Take, for example, the act of donating cars to high-risk drivers with no training:
It seems safe to assume that if Jablonski had no desire to donate anything, then nothing would be donated.

So, if any donation took place at all, it would require that Jablonski desired to make the donation.

If we applied your restrictive definition of altruism, wouldn't any donation--of anything--just be Jablonski acting on the selfish desire to donate something?


A more useful definition of altruism might be "the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others." (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/altruism)

Worth noting:
There is an argument made by some philosophers that their actually are NO selfless acts (that ALL acts are selfish). But this argument renders the word "altruism" meaningless, so you won't have to worry about it coming into play here.

Even by the definition you gave the answer still does not make sense. Your definition restates mine with more words. Altruism still requires "unselfish devotion to the welfare of others." Considering the car dealer owner desired for the students to have the cars due to alarm over car accident statistics, how could the act possibly be unselfish?

My point is that you are reiterating what my initial problem with the answer. By the logic of the definition of altruism you gave jablonski could not have been acting in an altruistic manner since it was in the interest of her desires for the students to have cars because of her selfish desire to see car accidents statistics decline. The act certainly was not unselfish, which your definition requires.

Okay. Now I see what's going on here. The issue lies with the definition of "unselfish", a word upon which the definition of "altruistic" depends.

You seem to be defining an "unselfish" act as "an act that DOES benefit someone other than the acting party, but that DOES NOT benefit to the acting party." This definition of unselfish is too restrictive. (Unless, of course, you subscribe to a philosophy that declares all acts that require volition to be selfish.)

Try defining unselfish as "not PURELY self-interested; done with the interests of others in mind."

When taking the LSAT, you will encounter words that are used in questionable ways. It will be a lot easier if you try to determine how the word IS being used (how the LSAT writers are defining the word), and answer the question based on that use.

Got it. Thanks. I think I'll buy your product :)

Why is B the correct answer ?