Logical Reasoning

PT109 · S4 · Q10 Critic: Some writers have questioned

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

Critic: Some writers have questioned Stalin’s sanity during his last years.

Some Writers

1. Stalin was debatably sane during his last years. 2. His vindictiveness (his cruelty) was due to his paranoia and morbid suspiciousness.

Critic

Stalin was not especially showing paranoia and morbid suspiciousness in his later years. Stalin was paranoid and morbidly suspicious from the jump (just like any long-lasting tyrant).

Evaluate

Where is the critic diverging from the writers? She's saying that it's odd to justify a claim about Stalin's loss of sanity during his waning years, by pointing to the idea that these years were characterized by Stalin being paranoid about people trying to subvert him, and retaliating viciously.

After all, that not only characterizes Stalin's early and middle periods as well, but it characterizes any tyrant who wants to stay in power for a long time.

Goal

Let's look for something like, or .

p.s. glasnost is a Russian word meaning "openness", that also was a shorthand for describing the end of the Soviet Union / Cold War in the late 1980s, under Mikhail Gorbachev. The other word from that time, perestroika, meant "change". It was sort of a transition period where Gorbachev tried to move Russia out of its Soviet Union, imperial, communist empire into a slightly more democratic, more Western, more worldly entity. So "writers under glasnost" would have had the motivation of being apologists for how scandalously cruel the Stalin regime was. They would be trying to make Russia not seem as crazy as Stalin would make it look on the world stage, and thus "explain away" his atrocities by saying he was just a confused old man losing his sanity, not the logical conclusion of an authoritarian communist system.

10.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses a point of disagreement between the critic and the writers?

  1. whether Stalin should be held

    Unrelated to Goal

    Unrelated to Goal: should be held guilty The dispute is just over whether Stalin was always paranoid and mean, or whether he got especially that way during his later years as his sanity waned. There is no talk here of one side saying Stalin should be held guilty while another side is saying he shouldn't be held guilty for his deeds.

    1% picked this

  2. whether Stalin’s cruel misdeeds provide

    Close, but Mismatched Terms

    The dispute is over whether Stalin's cruel misdeeds and morbid suspiciousness in his later years provide evidence of him going insane.

    17% picked this

  3. whether it is Stalin’s state

    Not Choosing Better Reason

    This makes the debate out to be, "THEY think that Stalin's paranoia is the best reason for doubting his sanity" whereas "SHE thinks that Stalin's cruelty is the best reason for doubting his sanity". But the debate was, "THEY think that Stalin may have been losing his sanity in his later years since he was cruel, paranoid, and morbidly suspicious", whereas "SHE thinks that he was cruel, paranoid, and morbidly suspicious during his entire long standing rule, as all tyrants are, so that wouldn't really be evidence that something changed in his later years".

    10% picked this

  4. whether tyranny tends to lead

    Both Agree

    They both think that tyranny at least sometimes leads to cruelty. They aren't fighting over whether it tends do (whether it's more than 50% of the time or less than 50% of the time).

    3% picked this

  5. Correct

    whether it was Stalin’s psychological

    Why this is right

    The wording here is surprising, but we can make this answer fit the disagreement better than any other answer. The Soviet writers used Stalin's psychological state to explain his cruel misdeeds. "Yes, yes, he was committing terrible acts, but it was just because he was losing his sanity in his later years and getting really paranoid and morbidly suspicious of everyone." The critic doesn't buy that storyline. "Stalin was always this way, not just in his later years. He didn't suddenly become mean at the end. Instead, he was always this way because that's how tyrants need to be in order to retain their power. They have to aggressively seek out and snuff any attempts to subvert their rule, so they are all necessarily paranoid and suspicious as a result of their autocratic political position."

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

    69% 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