Logical Reasoning

PT113 · S4 · Q12 Pundit: People complain about how

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

Pundit: People complain about how ineffectual their legislative representatives are, but this apparent ineffectuality is simply the manifestation of compromises these representatives must make when they do what they were elected to do: compete for the government’s scarce funds.

Conclusion (So)

When people express dissatisfaction with their legislative representatives, we can be assured that these representatives are simply doing what they were elected to do.

Evidence

Representatives were elected to compete for the government's scarce funds, which requires compromises.

Those compromises give off the impression of ineffectuality, which people express dissatisfaction about.

Evaluate

The conclusion is saying that reps are doing what they are elected to do, and it builds that case by defining what they're elected to do (compete for funds), telling us what's required of that (make compromises), and telling us a by-product of that requirement (you look ineffectual to some people).

One of the most helpful observations we can make while reading this one is its Conditional Conclusion.

We don't have to symbolize it, but if we did, it would look like this:

People expressing Reps doing dissatisfaction with - - - - - - - - -> what they were their legislative reps elected to do

Fighting / Refuting / Rebutting / Contradicting a conditional means saying, .

So if we want to fight this conclusion, we need to argue that .

The evidence only deals with one specific complaint people make. People will complain that their reps are ineffectual, the author ably shows us how apparent ineffectuality is simply the manifestation of them doing something required of their job.

But what about other complaints? What people complain that ?

Is that the representatives simply doing what they were elected to do?

What if people complain that their representatives are making racist / sexist remarks? Is that the reps simply doing what they were elected to do?

Goal

The correct answer will either lock us into the subject matter of the evidence, by giving some Linking idea like,

or it will be a Defender answer ruling out one of these other reasons,

12.

The pundit's argument is flawed because it takes for granted that

Correct
the apparent ineffectuality of legislative
Why this is right
This is harsh sounding, for a Necessary Assumption answer, but it's also conditional, so we want to look at it as a reasoning move and see if it feels like the author made that move. "The only" is weird indicator, because it's actually a Left side (sufficient) indicator. Famously, "only / only if" are Right side (necessary ) indicators. The only is the only time you'd ever put 'only' on the left, if that dumb mnemonic helps. So this answer is saying, If there's a popular source it's about their of dissatisfaction with ? apparent legislative representatives ineffectuality The author's conclusion begins with the trigger on the left. "Whenever people complain about their reps ...", and the evidence only talks about the complaint of ineffectuality. The evidence establishes if the complaint is the reps are about ineffectuality ? doing what we elected them to The conclusion is claiming, if there's the reps are a complaint - - - - - - - - - - ? doing what we elected them to So the argument is missing the link being offered by this answer choice: if there's the complaint is a complaint ? about ineffectuality Alternatively, we could judge this answer by negating it. If we said, "There are other sources of dissatisfaction besides the apparent ineffectuality of reps", would that weaken? Yes! That would be taking us into our Objection zone of, "What about when we are popularly dissatisfied that our representatives are personally enriching themselves by making deals with foreign leaders? What about when are leaders say violent or offensive things?"
Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
60% picked this
governmental resources that are currently
Out of Scope
Out of Scope: more abundant Too Strong: cannot except by This sounds harsh as well (only the actions of politicians can make currently scarce recourses become more abundant). Did our author commit herself to that limiting idea? No. We can do the same move of analyzing the reasoning move: If a politician a currently scarce doesn't take action ? resource will not become more abundant Did our author ever make that move? No. Even if we contrapose and say, "If a scarce resource is going to become more abundant, it requires the action of politicians", it doesn't match a reasoning move. The author never talked about whether or not a scarce resource would become more abundant.
9% picked this
constituents would continue to be
Predicts Counterfactual
It's super dubious on Must Be True or Must Be Assumed to pick an answer that judges a hypothetical or a counterfactual. Is our author assuming that constituents will be dissatisfied with the reps' apparent ineffectuality no matter what. Whether they understand or not that the need to compromise gives off the appearance of ineffectuality, they'll still be dissatisfied? We have no reason to commit the author to that view. She might think that people are genuinely confused. They are complaining about ineffectuality because they don't understand its true source. If they did understand its true source, they wouldn't complain.
14% picked this
legislative compromise inevitably results in
Too Strong: inevitably
This looks scary because of the universal. We can look at it conditionally: If there is then there will be legislative ? popular dissatisfaction compromise with politicians Does that represent some reasoning move the author makes? No, she never acts like there's a 100% certain connection from compromise to dissatisfaction. She clearly thinks that compromise is sometimes leading to dissatisfaction, but we have nothing to support that she's assuming it always does.
17% picked this
only elected public servants tend
Too Strong
Too Strong: only Out of Scope: non-elected public servants This answer is indirectly commenting on non-elected public servants, saying the author assumes that non-elected public servants never have the tendency to elicit dissatisfaction from the public. We don't know anything about how the author feels about non-elected public servants.
0% 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