Logical Reasoning

PT102 · S3 · Q6 Legislator: Your agency is responsible

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

Legislator: Your agency is responsible for regulating an industry shaken by severe scandals.

Evaluate

The legislator is saying,

And the regulator responds by saying, .

There is a bit of an Explain Curious Fact vibe going on here: "How come only 400 investigators were hired?"

The legislator's explanation is that the regulator was hoping to have fewer people investigating the scandal.

The regulator's alternate explanation is that the salary for the investigators was too low to even find 500 willing applicants.

Goal

The most common answers for Method are

analogies / distinctions

faulty implications / consequences

alternate explanations

dubious assumptions

This response would qualify as an alternate explanation, so we could head to the answers with that prephrase, but ultimately we'll pick whatever answer matches.

6.

The regulator responds to the legislator’s criticism by

  1. shifting the blame for the

    Out of Scope: blame for scandals

    This is tempting because it's only one word-off. The regulator is shifting the blame for the under-hiring of investigators. The regulator is saying, "The fact that we could only hire 400 investigators wasn't our choice. It was because you guys set the salary for the position so low that we couldn't find 500 qualified people wiling to work for that little money." But the response isn't saying, "we didn't cause the scandal the investigators are investigating. You guys caused the scandal."

    9% picked this

  2. Correct

    providing information that challenges the

    Why this is right

    This is just a bland answer, but it's certainly applicable to the stimulus. The regulator is saying, "The fact that we could only hire 400 investigators wasn't our choice. It was because you guys set the salary for the position so low that we couldn't find 500 qualified people wiling to work for that little money." Since it wasn't their choice to hire under 500 investigators, that hurts the legislator's conclusion, that the regulators purposely limited hiring.

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

    88% picked this

  3. claiming that compliance with the

    Out of Scope: insufficient mandate

    This answer says that the regulators claimed that "hiring 500 investigators wouldn't have been a sufficient response". That doesn't make any sense, because if you thought 500 was not sufficient then you would hire more than 500, not less than 500 as the regulators did.

    3% picked this

  4. rephrasing the legislator’s conclusion in

    Out of Scope: rephrasing conclusion

    The legislator's conclusion was, "the regulators purposely limited hiring so that the scandal wouldn't be fully revealed". The regulator's response offers an alternate explanation for why hiring was less than the intended 500, and by offering an alternate explanation, the regulator certainly is cast in a more favorable light. ("We weren't purposefully trying to limit the investigation; we just couldn't find enough qualified applicants.") But since the regulator's sentence doesn't mention anything about whether or not they were trying to prevent the full extent of the scandal from being uncovered, it's not apt to say that her sentence is a rephrasing of the conclusion. There are too many new ideas (starting salaries / qualified applicants) and missing ideas (attempting to prevent the full scandal from coming to light) to qualify as a rephrasing

    1% picked this

  5. showing that the legislator’s statements

    Too Strong: self-contradictory

    This is a common trap answer when we're doing Method of Response: saying the first person contradicted themselves. So far, it's never been correct. It's very rare for there to be self-contradictions on LSAT. It's one of the 10 Famous Flaws, but only because it shows up so frequently as an incorrect answer choice. Nothing the regulator says would show that two of the legislator's claims are contradictory.

    0% 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