Logical Reasoning

PT112 · S1 · Q14 If Slater wins the election

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

If Slater wins the election, McGuinness will be appointed head of the planning commission.

Information

conditionals (if = suff, unless = if-not)

Slater --> McG app head wins of Planning C

Polls are --> Slater pretty accurate wins

contrast

Yerxes is more qualified to head the Planning C than McG is, since she's an architect who's been on Planning C for 15 years.

Evaluate

Whenever we see conditionals on Must Be True / Most Supported, we have two immediate questions:

1. Can I chain this conditional up with any other conditionals? 2. Can I apply this conditional (usually via contrapositive) to a fact that was provided?

We had two conditionals (signified by If / Unless), so we should investigate #1. Do they have a common term that would allow them to chain?

Yes, they're both talking about Slater winning. So the chain looks like this:

Polls are → Slater → McG app head pretty accurate wins of Planning C

We could look for a "first to last" inference like, .

What about the middle sentence? Is that just filler or is it usable?

We know that .

Goal

Let's look for something rewarding us for chaining the conditionals together and possibly using the middle sentence, like, .

14.

Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the information above?

  1. If the polls are grossly

    Unknown Trigger / Illegal Negation

    We have a conditional (from the last sentence) that says, If the polls are not → Slater wins grossly inaccurate We don't anything about what happens if the polls are grossly inaccurate. This answer is trying to get students to think via an illegal negation. We know that "if polls are not grossly inaccurate, McGuinness will be appointed head", and this is baiting us into thinking "If the polls are grossly inaccurate, then McGuinness will not be appointed head".

    5% picked this

  2. McGuinness will be appointed head

    Unknown Trigger / Illegal Reversal

    "Only if" always indicates the necessary idea to the right of the arrow, so this answer is saying: McG appointed head → Polls good indication We have a conditional whose outcome is that McGuinness will be appointed head: Slater wins → McG appointed head But we don't have any conditional where McG being appointed head is the trigger. This answer is baiting us into an illegal reversal. We know: Polls good → Slater wins → McG appointed indication head And this answer is trying to backwards from the 3rd idea to the 1st idea.

    15% picked this

  3. Either Slater will win the

    Too Strong: false choice

    If Slater wins, then McG (not Yerxes) will be appointed head. What about it Slater doesn't win? We have no idea. They might still appoint McGuinness. They might appoint Bob. They might appoint Yerxes. We can't say. So there's no way to limit this down to two possible outcomes: Slater wins and McG is head vs. Slater loses and Yerxes is head

    5% picked this

  4. McGuinness is not an architect

    Too Strong: and vs. or

    This answer would be good (especially on Most Supported) if it said, "McG is not an architect or he hasn't been on the planning commission for at least 15 years". If McGuinness were both an architect and a member of the planning commission for at least 15 years, then that would go against the idea that Yerxes is more qualified, since she is an architect who has been a member for 15 years. So we can infer that McGuinness does not have this equivalent resume. But McGuinness could still be one or the other. Maybe he's an architect, but he's only been on the planning commission for 2 years. That would still allow Yerxes to be more qualified. According to this answer, though, that's impossible. McGuinness cannot be an architect.

    4% picked this

  5. Correct

    If the polls are a

    Why this is right

    We put together this conditional chain: Polls are not → Slater → McG app head grossly inaccurate wins of Planning C So we know that "if the polls are a good indication, then they are not grossly inaccurate, so Slater will win, and McG will be appointed head of Planning Commission". And since we were told that McG is less qualified than Yerxes, we can say that "someone less qualified that Yerxes will be appointed head of the Planning Commission".

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

    72% 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