Logical Reasoning

PT107 · S3 · Q6 Astorga’s campaign promises are

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

Astorga’s campaign promises are apparently just an attempt to please voters.

Conclusion

Voters aren't being told what Astorga really plans to do if she becomes mayor.

Evidence

Astorga is telling voters that, if she becomes mayor, she'll do [all the things she's learned from opinion polls that voters want the new mayor to do].

Evaluate

How did the author think he proved that voters aren't really hearing what Astorga plans to do? This is a Comparison argument in which the author is assuming a difference.

The author assumes that what Astorga plans to do is different from what she's currently telling voters she'll do.

She seems to be cynically thinking that Astorga has her own plans for being mayor, and she is just looking at opinion polls and disingenuously lying to voters, acting like she's going to work on their wishlist, but she's really just saying that stuff to get elected, and then will proceed with her "real" agenda.

Goal

Look for an answer establishing the "assumed difference" -- i.e., Astorga doesn't intend to do the stuff she's currently telling voters that she'll do.

Or look for an answer that the author is clearly committed to thinking, something that, if negated, would badly weaken his argument.

Which one of the following is a questionable assumption on which the argument relies?

If she is elected mayor,
Out of Scope: capable
The argument is about Intent, not results / capacity / feasibility. The author doesn't have to assume that Astorga is incapable of following through on her campaign promises. He might believe that she's perfectly capable of following through on the promises, but just doesn't plan to because she's not willing to pursue those ends.
5% picked this
The opinion polls on which
Out of Scope: inaccurate poll
The author didn't indicate any skepticism of the opinion polls. He may well believe that the opinion polls correctly reflect the voters' actual wishlist, but still believe that Astorga has no plans to actually follow through on these campaign promises (she's just telling voters what they want to hear in order to get elected).
5% picked this
Most voters are unlikely to
Out of Scope
Out of Scope: whether people vote for her Too Strong: most The argument is only about whether Astorga's intent matches her current rhetoric. The argument isn't affected one way or the other by whether Astorga wins or loses the election, so the author doesn't need to assume anything about what votes she'll receive or not receive. Furthermore, the word/concept of "most" will be wrong on Necessary Assumption 99.5% of the time we see it. When you negate "most" you're basically saying, "Nuh-uh, author. It's not true that at least 51% of voters are unlikely to be persuaded. It's at most 49%." No argument is every badly weakened by switching from "at least 51%" to "at most 49%", so negating "most" will basically never weaken.
1% picked this
Astorga has no strong opinions
Too Strong: no strong opinions
The author doesn't need to assume that Astorga sought out opinion polls because she has no strong opinions of her own. She may well have strong opinions but still seek opinion polls to see how well they align with the strong opinions of voters. Furthermore, she may have strong opinions of what she thinks the new mayor ought to do, while still hiding those opinions and just telling the voters what they want to hear. So negating this, and saying "she does have at least one strong opinion" wouldn't weaken the argument at all.
8% picked this
Correct
Astorga does not actually intend,
Why this is right
This just establishes the difference that the author was assuming. Astorga is telling voters that she'll do the things she knows they want the mayor to do. The author believes that voters aren't hearing what she'll really do. So the author is assuming that she won't really do the things she knows they want the mayor to do. If we negated this answer, we'd get, "Astorga actually does intend, if elected, to do [the things she's currently telling voters that she intends to do]", which would badly weaken the argument by essentially contradicting the conclusion.
Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
82% 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