Logical Reasoning

PT115 · S2 · Q10 Claude: To introduce greater public

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

Claude: To introduce greater public accountability into French foreign-policy decisions, France should hold referenda on major foreign-policy issues.

Conclusion (therefore)

The introduction of referenda on major foreign-policy issues would lead to foreign-policy disaster.

Evidence

The general public, unlike people in government, is unwilling or unable to become informed about foreign-policy issues.

Evaluate

Our author is assuming a Linking idea like,, even informed decisions in foreign-policy often lead to disaster. It's ultimately just a guess that someone is making, so that someone might as well be the general public."

Or an opponent might resist the idea that the public would continue to be uninformed / unwilling to become informed about foreign-policy issues, in this hypothetical new world.

In a world where we the people got to vote on whether or not to send troops to the Ukraine to resist Russian advances, maybe we would take more initiative to learn up on the situation.

Goal

Look for an answer that shuts down one of our objections, - when people make informed decisions about foreign policy, it much less frequently leads to disaster

- giving people the power to vote on foreign policy would not inspire them to become more informed about foreign policy issues

... or just look for any answer that adds more credence to the idea that letting the public vote on major foreign policy issues would lead to foreign-policy disaster.

Note: the question stem does say to support Lorraine's conclusion (usually we're told to strengthen someone's argument / reasoning) Often that distinction doesn't matter, but sometimes it suggests that the answer will affect the plausibility of the conclusion, without really dealing with what the evidence was talking about.

10.

Which one of the following, if true, provides the most support for Lorraine's conclusion?

The public would become better
Weakens
This talks about one of our objections. Maybe currently the public is ill-informed but if we gave them the power to vote on major foreign policy issues, it would motivate them to be better equipped to make an informed choice.
3% picked this
Not every issue would be
No Impact
If anything this might weaken a bit, because by saying, "Look, the general public wouldn't be voting on everything, just general outlines" we'd be lessening the potential worry about what the general public's voting could do to foreign policy. Since this makes it sound like the public would be voting on less than everything, it goes in the direction of "they are less likely to cause foreign policy disaster".
2% picked this
Correct
Decision by referendum would make
Why this is right
This helps to substantiate the author's conclusion. It provides the "causal mechanism" or provides a missing explanatory link between letting the public vote on foreign policy via referendum and getting foreign-policy disaster. 1. We give the public the chance to vote on foreign policy. 2. They make erratic decisions 3. The overall course of foreign policy is unpredictable (one referendum makes France seem like a globalizing nation ready to intervene in foreign crises / the next referendum makes France seem like an isolationist country). 4. Other countries can't count on France to have a consistent style or mentality to their foreign policy decisions, so they stop wanting to partner with France on any international issue. Many students might be thinking, "does it really qualify as disaster when your allies can't make reasonable decisions based on a consistent French line"? No, but it doesn't have to qualify as disaster to be our best available answer. This isn't Sufficient Assumption, where we would actually need to guarantee foreign-policy disaster. This is Strengthen, where we just pick which ever answer helps us drift the most in the direction of believing the conclusion. And this answer does more than any other to corroborate the idea that letting foreign policy decisions be made by referenda would have bad repercussions for foreign-policy.
Skill tested: Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
85% picked this
Requiring a large minimum number
Weakens
Just like (A), this is a weakening idea that logically counters Lorraine's premise. She is worried about uninformed voters, and this answer talks about how in a world where we used referenda, we could ensure that many people would consider the issue and treat it as important.
3% picked this
Elections decided mainly on foreign-policy
Strengthens Claude
It's hard to say that this weakens Lorraine, but it definitely strengthens Claude. He has already mentioned that regular elections don't give the public accountability into foreign-policy, because the candidate you vote for has positions on multiple issues. If your candidate wins, can we blame you for the foreign policy decisions they make while in office? No, because 1) you can say that you voted for them based on their economic positions, not their foreign policy decisions 2) voting for someone based on foreign policy is really just endorsing decisions they've made in the past, not endorsing judgments they may make about future issues Anyway, since this answer would help Claude make the push for referenda on foreign-policy issues, it's definitely not strengthening Lorraine's argument.
7% 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