Logical Reasoning

PT106 · S3 · Q14 If citizens do not exercise their

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

If citizens do not exercise their right to vote, then democratic institutions will crumble and, as a consequence, much valuable social cohesion will be lost.

Conclusion

(implicitly) Citizens should vote.

Evidence

If citizens don't vote, democratic institutions will crumble and lots of social cohesion will be lost. Yes, one vote isn't going to make a perceptible difference, but you have to think about the act of non-voting on a large scale. If it would be socially damaging for large numbers to not vote, then it would be wrong for an individual to not vote. (Just as if it would be bad for society if large numbers of people engaged in theft, then it's wrong for an individual to engage in theft).

Evaluate

Usually, on Main Conclusion questions, the conclusion is found in the first sentence or as part of some "but / yet / however" style rebuttal. Here we kind of have neither. The first sentence isn't a supported idea. The argument doesn't say.

The argument establishes in that first sentence that there are negative consequences if citizens don't vote. Then it presents a discussion that is sort of rebutting the suggested position of, .

"Yes it does!", the author thinks. Why does it matter? Here, we get supporting ideas: - if collective omission would damage social cohesion (which we know from the first sentence it would), then individual omission is wrong.

Goal

Since it's harder to land on one explicit claim to call the Conclusion, I would look for something resembling , but ultimately be flexible and test each answer by the standard of ... 1. Does this sound like an opinion the author holds? 2. Did she support this opinion?

14.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main conclusion of the argument?

Correct
People in a democracy should
Why this is right
This looks good. The author clearly has this opinion, and the whole argument sounds like support for this position. Why should we not neglect to vote? - well, if citizens neglect, democratic institutions crumble and social cohesion is lost. - even though individual votes don't matter, if an action would be bad writ large, then it's bad on an individual scale too.
Skill tested: Main Conclusion · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
61% picked this
Dishonest acts and failure to
Too Strong: equally damaging
The author brings up dishonest acts like theft in the final sentence to elaborate on this moral principle that "if it would be wrong if lots of people did it, then it's wrong for you to do it". She doesn't commit to the extreme position that dishonest acts (such as theft) and failing to vote are equally damaging. She thinks they have at least one relevant similarity (the moral principle just discussed), but she doesn't defend that they're equally damaging.
1% picked this
There is a risk that
Out of Scope
Out of Scope: imitated Too Broad: nothing about voting This author is definitely making an argument about voting, so the scope of this answer is way off. This answer sounds like a possible claim the author would agree to, but she isn't arguing for it or defending it. Why should we believe that there's a risk that antisocial acts will be imitated by others? ? ? ? ? The author doesn't provide any reason for this claim, so it can't be her Conclusion.
4% picked this
A single person’s vote or
Contradicted
The author twice acknowledges that the single non-vote or the single act of theft doesn't really do anything perceptible on its own. Nevertheless, we have a moral principle that still would say "it's wrong not to vote / it's wrong to steal". Even though it doesn't make a great deal of difference as a single act, because a large number of these acts would make a great deal of negative difference, we hold individuals accountable for their voting / stealing behavior.
13% picked this
Large-scale dishonesty and neglect of
Out of Scope: other societies
We never go into non-democratic societies. We also are supposed to see the "dishonest theft" example as a follow up example to the moral principle that the author is applying to voting. But this answer never even mentions "voting", so it's losing out to an answer choice like (A) that nails the actual central focus of the argument.
21% 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