Logical Reasoning

PT103 · S3 · Q22 If the statements in the passage

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

Whenever she considers voting in an election to select one candidate for a position and there is at least one issue important to her, Kay uses the following principle in choosing which course of action to take: it is acceptable for me to vote for a candidate whose opinions differ from mine on at least one issue important to me whenever I disagree with each of the other candidates on even more such issues; it is otherwise unacceptable to vote for that candidate.

Statements

conditional (whenever - Left side, sufficient)

Disagree w/ other acceptable to vote for candidates on greater → candidate X, even if # of important issues disagree w/ X on one or more important issues

conditional (otherwise - negate previous trigger)

don't disagree w/ other unacceptable to vote candidates on greater → for candidate X, if # of important issues disagree w/ X on one or more important issues

In upcoming election, there is only one important issue to Kay, and only Medina (of the three candidates) shares her opinion.

Evaluate

It looks like in this election, the only acceptable person Kay can vote for is Medina. Kay could otherwise not vote, but were she to vote for Legrand or Norton she'd be breaking her rule.

She's not allowed to vote for people who don't share her view on an important issue, unless the other candidates mismatch with her view on a greater number of important issues.

22.

If the statements in the passage are true, which one of the following must also be true about Kay's course of action in any election to select one candidate for a position?

If there are no issues
Out of Scope: no important issues
The only unacceptable action we were told about was voting for a candidate who disagreed with her on at least one important issue. We weren't told any rules that would govern her behavior when there are no important issues to her.
9% picked this
If she agrees with each
Out of Scope
Out of Scope: agrees on most issues The only unacceptable action we were told about was voting for a candidate who disagreed with her on at least one important issue. We weren't told any rules that would govern her behavior when she agrees with all the candidates on most issues. Most = more than half, but it doesn't guarantee it's less than 100%. So when this answer says, "She agrees with each candidate on most important issues", that might still mean she agrees with them on all (since "all issues" are "more than half of the issues"). Thus, it's not clear from "agrees with most" whether she would disagree with them on some important issues. And then even if we knew she agreed with all the candidates on "most, but not all" the important issues, we'd still need more precise info about how many important issues she disagreed with, for each candidate. After all, her voting rules are about precisely comparing the number of important issues where she conflicts with each candidate.
5% picked this
If she agrees with a
Too Strong
The only unacceptable action we were told about was voting for a candidate who disagreed with her on at least one important issue. This answer is saying, "she only agrees with them on one important issue". Does that mean that she disagrees with them on at least one important issue? No, because as this paragraph revealed, she might have only one important issue in a given election. If, like in the upcoming election, she has only one important issue, and Candidate X agrees with her on that issue, this answer is saying it's unacceptable for her to vote for X. That doesn't make any sense.
5% picked this
Correct
If she disagrees with each
Why this is right
She's only allowed to vote for someone who disagrees with her on one or more important issue if she disagrees with all the other candidates on a greater number of important issues. In order for Kay to consider it acceptable to vote for someone whom she disagrees with on 3 important issues, it would have to be the case that she disagrees with all the other candidates on at least 4 important issues. But since that isn't the case in this election being described, it's unacceptable for her to vote for any of the candidates.
Skill tested: Must be True · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
54% picked this
If there are more issues
Out of Scope
Out of Scope: # of disagree vs. agree The only unacceptable action we were told about was voting for a candidate who disagreed with her on at least one important issue, when it isn't the case that all other candidates disagree on even more important issues. So say there are 10 important issues to her. She and candidate X disagree on 6 of them, agree on 4 of them. Is she allowed to vote for candidate X? According to this answer choice, no. According to the paragraph, yes, as long as she disagrees with all the other candidates on at least 7 of her important issues.
26% 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