Logical Reasoning

PT115 · S4 · Q15 Ruth: To become a politician

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

Ruth: To become a politician, a person should be required to have a diversity of experience.

Ruth

Politicians should be required to have a diversity of experience, since diversity of experience goes along with understanding the need to compromise.

Steph

Simply having diverse experience does not make you worthy of public trust, as you suggest. One might have diverse experience but still not be worthy of public trust.

Evaluate

Steph's argument is a bit circular, honestly, since she's saying

That conclusion is a restatement of the premise.

However the first thing that's supposed to catch our ear, before we even read the circular premise, is that Stephanie is unfairly accusing Ruth of having said something wacky: .

Ruth didn't say anything like that. She just listed diversity of experience as being among the (possibly many) qualities one should have to be a politician.

Goal

Find an answer saying that Stephanie is attacking a Straw Man, a claim that Ruth never actually said or implied.

15.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the reasoning in Stephanie's response to Ruth's statements?

  1. The response simply asserts a

    Not Opposite

    This is flirting with the Circular aspect of Stephanie's argument. She does offer a reason for her conclusion, it's just one that presumes the truth of the conclusion because it essentially reiterates the same meaning. Still, that's not the same as giving NO reason. But the bigger problem is that Stephanie is defending a point of view that isn't opposite to Ruth's. Ruth said "politicians should be required to have a diversity of experience. Stephanie never asserted "politicians should not be required to have a diversity of experience".

    22% picked this

  2. The response fails to provide

    Too Strong: not beneficial

    Stephanie isn't assuming that experience is not beneficial. She's only arguing that it's not sufficient to guarantee that you're worthy of the public trust. Getting good sleep is beneficial to good LSAT studying, but "simply getting good sleep does not guarantee that you're studying LSAT well".

    12% picked this

  3. Correct

    The response attributes to Ruth

    Why this is right

    This gets at Stephanie's false accusation of "as you suggest". Ruth never said that "simply having a diversity of experience makes you worthy of the public trust". That's a strong idea that's hard to defend (more vulnerable to criticism). She just said that diversity of experience should be a required trait of a politician. That's a milder idea that's much easier to defend.

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

    61% picked this

  4. The response fails to make

    Irrelevant Distinction

    Our logical problem with Stephanie's response isn't that she's talking about experience too broadly without getting nuanced about the type. It's that she's kind of lying or confused about what Ruth said.

    3% picked this

  5. The response fails to provide

    Too Strong: unimportant

    Stephanie isn't assuming that flexibility is unimportant. She's just arguing that diversity of experience (which according to Ruth is associated with more flexibility) isn't all you need to be worthy of the public trust.

    3% 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