Logical Reasoning

PT115 · S2 · Q9 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

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

Claude's Conclusion (should)

France should hold referenda on major foreign-policy issues, in order to introduce greater public accountability into French foreign policy decisions.

Claude's Evidence

Elections are decided on multiple issues, so they're too imprecise to count as a mandate (they don't clearly send a message about what people think the foreign policy should be).

Lorraine's Conclusion

Introducing foreign policy referenda would lead to foreign-policy disaster.

Lorraine's Evidence

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

Evaluate

When we're doing a Logical Counter, we want to specifically respond to the objection while defending the original position.

Given that ... we want to defend the idea of holding referenda (letting people vote on individual issues) on major foreign-policy decisions,

How can we respond to the objection that ... the general public, unlike the government, is unwilling or unable to become informed about foreign-policy issues?

We could try to argue that,

But it's pretty bad, from a common sense point of view, to try to argue that

Is there a way to say we could help the general public make more informed decisions? Maybe if we switch over to this referenda system, we could start mailing out informative brochures or creating informative websites, so that the public would be better able to get informed and thus make a wise foreign policy decision with their referendum vote.

Goal

Defend the idea of having referenda on major foreign policy issues, while responding to the objection that the general public is too uninformed to be qualified to vote on these issues.

Which one of the following responses by Claude would, if true, most strongly counter Lorraine's objection?

The mechanics of holding a
Not Responding to Objection
This is about whether we could logistically pull off holding a referendum, but it isn't responding to Lorraine's concern about the general public being too uninformed about foreign policy issues to be trusted with making these important foreign policy decisions.
9% picked this
Some of the information on
Opposite of Goal
This is a reason not to let the general public vote on foreign policy issues. We would have to either not give them all the intelligence that government leaders would be using to make those decisions, or we would have to "de-classify" intelligence secrets so that the public could make an informed decision. Both of those are bad options, so this works against our goal of pushing for referenda on foreign policy decisions.
4% picked this
Foreign proponents and opponents of
Opposite / Not Responding to Objection
This is maybe another reason not to let the general public vote on foreign policy issues --- doing so would encourage all kinds of foreign interference. The general public would be besieged by pressure campaigns from people from other countries who wanted France to go one way or another with a given foreign policy issue. Furthermore, this isn't responding to the objection! This is doing nothing to address Lorraine's concern that the general public isn't informed enough to be voting on these foreign policy decisions.
6% picked this
Correct
The general public has little
Why this is right
This, finally, is responding to Lorraine's concern that the public is too uninformed about foreign policy to be voting on it. This answer allows us to say, "Yes, Lorraine, we agree -- currently the public is too uninformed. But were we to enact this change and tell the public that they get to vote on foreign policy, then something else would change too -- they would now realize that they have some power to influence foreign policy and so they would now have much desire to become informed." Lorraine said that the general public is currently "unwilling or unable" to become informed. If they're unable, this answer answer won't help. But if they're unwilling to become informed in the present situation where they have no power to influence the foreign policy decisions of their government, then giving the public some power (in the form of referenda) could meaningfully alter their willingness to be informed about foreign policy.
Skill tested: Weaken · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
80% picked this
Foreign governments friendly to France
Opposite of Goal
This is a reason not to let the general public vote on foreign policy issues. Were we to do so, France's foreign allies would be less willing to share valuable information with the French government. This works against our goal of pushing for referenda on foreign policy decisions (and it does nothing to respond to Lorraine's objection about the uninformed general public).
1% 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