Logical Reasoning

PT105 · S1 · Q24 Editorial: Our society has a

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

Editorial: Our society has a vested interest in maintaining a political system in which candidates are free to adhere to their principles.

Conclusion (Thus)

Government should pay for candidates' campaigns.

Evidence

Society has a vested interest in a political system where candidates are free to adhere to their principles.

Campaigns are so costly that most candidates must seek private funding, and in doing so they almost always have to compromise their principles.

Evaluate

The correct answer should be a principle directed at Governments whose right side is telling them what they should spend money on.

What about the trigger? Why does the author think the government should pay for campaigns?

Because in the current system, most candidates need to get private funding which almost always causes them to compromise their principles, and we have a vested interest in making sure candidates are free to adhere to their principles.

Since those two claims have an overlapping idea "the candidates' principles", we might see them Term Swap the idea of "something society has a vested interest in maintaining" into the 2nd sentence.

Goal

Look for a principle like,

24.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the conclusion as it is drawn in the argument?

  1. Candidates should not run for

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This is a principle directed at candidates, telling them what they shouldn't do. That's worthless to us. We need a principle directed at governments, telling them what they should do.

    5% picked this

  2. Candidates wealthy enough to finance

    Unrelated to Goal

    This is a principle directed at candidates, telling them what they shouldn't do. That's worthless to us. We need a principle directed at governments, telling them what they should do.

    2% picked this

  3. Voters should not support a

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This is a principle directed at voters, telling them what they shouldn't do. That's worthless to us. We need a principle directed at governments, telling them what they should do.

    2% picked this

  4. Correct

    The government should finance a

    Why this is right

    This says, "If having the government finance X will further a vested interest of society, then government should finance X". It's the only answer up here with any language that resembles the Conclusion, so we should instantly be gravitating towards it, if we're trying to use the "Conclusion Shortcut" on our first pass (prioritizing answers that have language similar to the conclusion). Would financing elections further a vested interest of society? Yes, we know that financing elections would help candidates stay faithful to their principles, which is something society has a vested interest in. The trigger applies to the evidence; the outcome matches our conclusion. Delicious.

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

    89% picked this

  5. Private funding for political campaigns

    Unrelated to Goal

    This is a principle that would allow to conclude that "private funding for campaigns shouldn't be encouraged". That doesn't give us a direct path to concluding "therefore, government should fund campaigns". We want a principle that tells us we should do public funding, not one that says we shouldn't encourage private funding. Also, the trigger for this rule is "If private funding isn't designed to fix an imbalance among candidates' financial means, then private funding shouldn't be encouraged." What we heard about private funding is that it often IS a means of fixing an imbalance among candidates' financial means. Only super wealthy candidates can self-finance. The non-rich candidates seek private funding as a means to redress this imbalance. So the trigger wouldn't apply.

    2% 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