Logical Reasoning

PT119 · S2 · Q4 Chapin: Commentators have noted with

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

Chapin: Commentators have noted with concern the recent electoral success by extremist parties in several democratic countries.

Conclusion

These successes (by extremist parties) pose no threat to democracy in those countries.

Evidence (X. Furthermore, Y.)

The extremists won pluralities, not majorities, and won only when the moderate parties were fighting amongst themselves.

Evaluate

The language we need to prove is "Pose no threat to democracy". The argument didn't provide any proving mechanism like, , so the correct answer will have to provide that proving mechanism.

Goal

We know two facts, so either one of them could be the Launchpad that takes us to the Landing Zone of "poses no threat to democracy". Let's look for one of these:

won plurality, not majority → poses no threat to democracy

won only when moderates → poses no threat were in-fighting to democracy

4.

Which one of the following, if assumed, enables Chapin's conclusion to be properly drawn?

  1. Correct

    Parties that win pluralities but

    Why this is right

    This gives us a rule that says win plurality, ? never directly or indirectly not majority effect change in country's political arrangements We know that the extremist parties' recent successes involved winning pluralities, not majorities. So according to this rule, the extremist parties will not directly or indirectly effect change in their country's political arrangements. Does that, then, prove that these victories pose no threat to democracy? Sure. We have to use a little common sense / dictionary-logic to make that last link, but if you're "not directly or indirectly bringing about any change in your country's political arrangement" then you're not posing any threat to (the political arrangement of) democracy.

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

    74% picked this

  2. Multiparty political systems are always

    Unrelated to Goal

    This answer doesn't give us any way to prove the idea of "pose no threat to democracy". The correct answer was a rule that output the idea of "pose no threat of directly or indirectly changing the political arrangement of the country". This answer has no language like that. This answer just allows us to prove which political system is more democratic.

    1% picked this

  3. Countries in which extremist parties

    Too Weak: sometimes

    The word "some / sometimes" will usually be wrong on Sufficient Assumption, Strengthen, Weaken, and Paradox, because on those problems we're shopping for answers with maximum impact. This answer lets us know that it's possible that these countries where extremist parties won pluralities could have democratic governments as strong as in other countries. But we need an answer to prove that these recent victories pose no threat to democracy.

    7% picked this

  4. Members of moderate parties who

    Unrelated to Goal Too Weak: sometimes

    This answer doesn't give us any way to prove the idea of "pose no threat to democracy". The correct answer was a rule that output the idea of "pose no threat of directly or indirectly changing the political arrangement of the country". This answer has no language like that. This answer just hints at the possibility (way too weak for Sufficient Assumption) that in future elections, the moderates will team up to defeat the extremists.

    11% picked this

  5. People are not always supporting

    Too Weak: not always

    The word "some / sometimes" will usually be wrong on Sufficient Assumption, Strengthen, Weaken, and Paradox, because on those problems we're shopping for answers with maximum impact. When we say "not all / not always", that has the same strength, because all it means when we say "X is not always Y" is that "Some X's are not Y". So this answer is hopelessly weak; it couldn't possibly guarantee that the extremist victories pose no threat to democracy.

    8% 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