Logical Reasoning

PT117 · S4 · Q26 Political theorist: For all of

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

Political theorist: For all of its members to be strong in foreign policy, an alliance of countries must respond aggressively to problems.

Conclusion (Thus)

Not all members of the EU will be strong in foreign policy. rephrase: At least one member of the EU will not be strong in foreign policy.

Evidence

All members → Respond strong in FP aggressively

Respond → all see as aggressively grave

all see as → all agree grave threat to $

Evaluate

The first three sentences give us three conditionals. Must = right side (Required = Right) Only if = right side Unless = rephrase into 'X requires Y' form, or do an "If-not" (put the negated version of one of the ideas on the left side of an arrow, the regular version of the other idea on the right side of the arrow)

The easiest way to mentally or conditionally chain them is to take advantage of the "X requires Y" way of reading "X → Y".

For all members to have strong foreign policy it requires responding aggressively to problems which requires perceiving the problems as grave which requires all agreeing it threatens their economy

So the evidence gives us a conditional chain. Str FP → Rsp Agg → Per Grave → Agree Threat And the conclusion is stating factually, Str FP.

It looks like we need to use the contrapositive of this chain. ~Agree → ~Per Grave → ~Resp Agg → ~Str FP

Goal

To prove that Str FP, we just need to know that - they won't all agree it threatens economy - they won't all perceive as grave or - they won't respond aggressively

26.

The conclusion drawn above follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

  1. Countries that refuse to join

    Unrelated to Goal

    This didn't fire any of the three contrapositive triggers we're looking for, in order to prove "not all strong foreign policy". ~Agree ? ~Per Grave ? ~Resp Agg ? ~Str FP - they won't all agree it threatens economy - they won't all perceive as grave - they won't respond aggressively We should also be creeped out by the Relative vs. Absolute shift. The argument deals with whether or not they respond aggressively. This answer is shifting to more/less aggressively.

    1% picked this

  2. Countries become less aggressive in

    Unrelated to Goal

    This didn't fire any of the three contrapositive triggers we're looking for, in order to prove "not all strong foreign policy". ~Agree ? ~Per Grave ? ~Resp Agg ? ~Str FP - they won't all agree it threatens economy - they won't all perceive as grave - they won't respond aggressively We should also be creeped out by out of scope stuff (greater wealth). Correct answers to Sufficient Assumption almost never bring in any new wording.

    4% picked this

  3. Correct

    Problems that appear to some

    Why this is right

    This fires the first of our triggers, setting the whole contrapositive chain in motion. ~Agree ? ~Per Grave ? ~Resp Agg ? ~Str FP If problems that appear to some members to threaten the economy will not appear that way to others, then we know they will not all agree that a problem threatens their alliance's economy. Thus, they won't all perceive it as grave and thus they won't respond aggressively, which proves that not all members will be strong in foreign policy.

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

    76% picked this

  4. European Union member countries that

    Unrelated to Goal

    This didn't fire any of the three contrapositive triggers we're looking for, in order to prove "not all strong foreign policy". ~Agree ? ~Per Grave ? ~Resp Agg ? ~Str FP - they won't all agree it threatens economy - they won't all perceive as grave - they won't respond aggressively We should also be creeped out by out of scope stuff (perceive economic relevance). Correct answers to Sufficient Assumption almost never bring in any new wording.

    15% picked this

  5. Alliances that are economically beneficial

    Unrelated to Goal

    This didn't fire any of the three contrapositive triggers we're looking for, in order to prove "not all strong foreign policy". ~Agree ? ~Per Grave ? ~Resp Agg ? ~Str FP - they won't all agree it threatens economy - they won't all perceive as grave - they won't respond aggressively We should also be creeped out by out of scope stuff (economically beneficial alliances).

    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