Logical Reasoning

PT1 · S4 · Q13 The press reports on political campaigns

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

  • 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

The press reports on political campaigns these days as if they were chess games.

Conclusion

Campaign advisors should stay out of the limelight so that the press can report on the most revealing positions on substantive issues the candidates have taken.

Evidence

The press currently treats campaigns like chess matches between advisors, ignoring substantive policy issues. Voters lose because they need substantive information to make informed decisions but are getting only process coverage.

Evaluate

The author's proposed fix presupposes there are revealing substantive positions for the press to cover once advisors step back. If candidates have not in fact taken any revealing substantive positions, then sidelining the advisors solves nothing — the press would have nothing of substance to report on. So the argument quietly assumes that candidates have taken substantive positions worth reporting.

Goal

Find the answer that captures the unstated assumption: candidates have actually staked out substantive policy positions. Negation test: if they haven't, the proposed fix collapses.

13.

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

  1. Chess is the most appropriate

    Out of Scope

    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.

    0% picked this

  2. Correct

    The candidates in the election

    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.

    69% picked this

  3. How the press reports politics

    Bad Assumption

    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.

    14% picked this

  4. The voters are not paying

    Bad Assumption

    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).

    12% picked this

  5. There is no difference between

    Bad Assumption

    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.

    4% picked this

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