Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Medium

PT1 S4 Q13 Explanation

The press reports on political campaigns

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

TopicsNecessary Assumption

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Free to start

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

The press reports on political campaigns these days as if they were chess games. One candidate’s campaign advisor makes a move; the other candidate’s advisor makes a countermove. The press then reports on the campaign advisors and not on the candidates. The losers in this chess game are the voters. They are let the press report on the most revealing positions on substantive issues the candidates have taken.

What this question is testing

Necessary Assumption

Conclusion

The author wants campaign advisors to step back so the press can finally cover what really matters: where the candidates stand on substantive policy issues.

Evidence

The press is treating campaigns like chess between advisors, ignoring substantive issues. Voters need substantive information to vote well, and they aren't getting it.

Evaluate

Here's the gap. The author's fix — get the advisors out of the way and let the press cover substantive positions — only works if the candidates have actually taken substantive positions in the first place. If the candidates haven't taken positions on real issues, no amount of pushing advisors out will give the press anything substantive to report.

That's the unstated piece. The argument assumes the substantive positions exist; it just thinks the press is missing them because of all the advisor noise.

Negation test: imagine the candidates have not taken substantive positions. Then sidelining advisors changes nothing — the press still has nothing of substance to cover. The conclusion falls apart.

Goal

Pick the answer that says, in some form, the candidates have actually taken substantive positions.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
13.

Which one of the following is an assumption upon which the argument in

Answer choices

  1. Out of Scope0% picked this

    Chess is the most appropriate analogy to reporting on

    The author uses the chess analogy as an illustration but never claims it's the most appropriate one. The argument does not depend on chess being the right metaphor — only on the fact that the press is reporting on process moves rather than substance. Negation test: even if some other game would have been a better analogy, the argument still works.

  2. Correct69% picked this

    The candidates in the election are taking positions on substantive

    Why this is right

    This is the assumption the argument needs. The author's solution — get advisors out of the way and let the press cover the candidates' substantive positions — only works if candidates have actually taken such positions. Negation test: if candidates have not taken positions on substantive policy issues, then pushing advisors aside leaves the press with nothing of substance to report. The conclusion (that this fix would help voters) collapses.

    Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

  3. Bad Assumption14% picked this

    How the press reports politics determines the substantive issues in

    This is too strong. The author thinks the press should be reporting on substantive issues, but doesn't need to claim the press determines what those issues are. The substantive issues exist independently of how the press reports — the press is just choosing which to cover. Negation test: even if the press doesn't determine the substantive issues, the author's recommendation (cover the substantive positions candidates have taken) still goes through.

  4. Bad Assumption12% picked this

    The voters are not paying enough attention to the election to be able to

    The argument complains that voters are not given the information they need — not that voters are inattentive. Negation test: if voters are paying plenty of attention, the argument's point still stands — they're paying attention to process coverage and not getting the substantive information they need. The argument is about supply (what the press provides), not demand (whether voters are looking).

  5. Bad Assumption4% picked this

    There is no difference between reporting on the political process and reporting

    The argument explicitly distinguishes between reporting on the process (advisors, chess moves) and reporting on substantive issues — that distinction is the whole point of the complaint. So the author cannot be assuming there is no difference between them; just the opposite.

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free