Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT110 S3 Q14 Explanation

People’s political behavior frequently does

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

TopicsRole

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Free to start

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

People’s political behavior frequently does not match their rhetoric. Although many complain about government intervention in their lives, they tend not to reelect inactive politicians. But a politician’s activity consists largely in the passage of laws voters often reelect politicians whose behavior they resent.

What this question is testing

Role

Argument

The author is making a point about voter inconsistency: people complain about government intervention, but they reelect the very politicians who do the intervening. How does the author build that case?

Step 1: People complain about intervention.

Step 2: People don't reelect inactive politicians.

Step 3: Politicians' activity = passing intervening laws.

Combine 2 and 3: voters reelect those who pass intervening laws. Combine with 1: voters reelect those whose intervention they resent.

Evaluate

The phrase in question is Step 2 — a premise. It's one of the supporting facts that, combined with another premise, leads to the conclusion.

Goal

Find the answer that says it's a premise supporting the conclusion that voters reelect politicians whose behavior they resent.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
14.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the argument by the claim that people tend not

Answer choices

  1. Wrong Role17% picked this

    It describes a phenomenon for which the argument’s conclusion is offered

    The phrase isn't a phenomenon the conclusion explains. The conclusion is a separate claim — that voters reelect politicians they resent. The phrase is one of the premises feeding into that conclusion, not a separate fact the conclusion is offered to explain.

  2. Correct65% picked this

    It is a premise offered in support of the conclusion that voters often reelect politicians

    Why this is right

    This is the right role. The phrase "people tend not to reelect inactive politicians" is a premise. Combined with the next premise (politicians' activity consists of passing laws affecting voters), it supports the conclusion that voters reelect politicians whose behavior they resent. Premise role, conclusion correctly identified.

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

  3. Wrong Role1% picked this

    It is offered as an example of how a politician’s activity consists largely in the passage of laws whose

    The phrase isn't an example of the activity-passing-laws claim — it's a separate claim about voter behavior. An example would be a specific case ("Politician X passed law Y, which affected voters Z"). Instead, the phrase is a generalization about voter behavior in elections.

  4. Wrong Role5% picked this

    It is a generalization based on the claim that people complain about government intervention

    The phrase is not derived from the complaint about government intervention. It's a separate empirical claim about voting patterns, presented alongside (not as a generalization from) the complaint claim. The two are distinct premises.

  5. Wrong Role13% picked this

    It is cited as evidence that people’s behavior never matches their

    This says the phrase is offered as evidence that people's behavior never matches their political beliefs. The argument doesn't make that "never" claim — it just says behavior often (or "frequently") doesn't match. The phrase isn't evidence for a "never" generalization that isn't in the argument.

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