Logical Reasoning

PT117 · S3 · Q8 Rossi: It is undemocratic for

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

Rossi: It is undemocratic for people to live under a government in which their interests are not represented.

Rossi's argument structure

Rossi states a general principle () and applies it to children: since children's interests are sometimes different from their parents', children should have the right to vote.

Smith's response (background)

Smith concedes Rossi's point about different interests but raises a separate practical objection: children's conceptions and time horizons are too immature for voting responsibility.

Evaluate

The question asks how Rossi's argument is structured. Rossi opens with a general principle (about democracy and representation) and then applies it to a specific case (children). That's an appeal to a general principle.

Goal

Find the answer that describes Rossi as appealing to a general principle.

8.

Which one of the following most accurately describes Rossi's argument?

  1. Correct

    It makes an appeal to

    Why this is right

    This describes Rossi exactly. Rossi's opening sentence — "It is undemocratic for people to live under a government in which their interests are not represented" — is a general principle. Rossi then applies it to children: their interests sometimes differ from their parents', so they should have the right to vote. Classic appeal to a general principle.

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

    78% picked this

  2. It denies the good faith

    Bad Description

    Rossi doesn't accuse anyone of bad faith — there's no attack on a person's sincerity or honesty. Rossi makes a positive case for children's suffrage from a principle. No personal attack, no opponent being addressed in this passage.

    1% picked this

  3. It relies on evaluating the

    Bad Description

    Rossi doesn't evaluate predictable consequences of giving children the vote. The argument is principle-based, not consequence-based. Rossi just says: representation is required by democracy, children have distinct interests, therefore they should vote. (Smith, in contrast, raises consequence-based concerns about children's decisional capacity — but the question is about Rossi.)

    6% picked this

  4. It substitutes description for giving

    Bad Description

    Rossi gives an actual rationale for child suffrage — the appeal to the democratic representation principle. The argument isn't merely descriptive ("here's how things are"); it's normative ("here's why things should change," based on a principle). So Rossi doesn't substitute description for rationale.

    11% picked this

  5. It employs a term on

    Bad Description

    Rossi doesn't use any term with two different senses. The terms ("democratic," "interests," "representation") are used consistently. There's no semantic shift — Rossi runs straight from principle to application.

    4% 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