Logical Reasoning

PT12 · S1 · Q3 Adults have the right to vote

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

Adults have the right to vote; so should adolescents.

Conclusion (should = opinion)

Adolescents should have the right to vote.

Evidence

Adults have the right to vote, and to the extend that adolescents and adults are different, adults can't be expected to represent the interests of adolescents.

If they can't represent the interests of adolescents, then only by giving adolescents the vote will these interests be represented.

Evaluate

There are a lot of flaws with this argument, but we don't care since we're just doing Role.

We know when we do Role or Main Conclusion that most of the time the main conclusion will be found in the first sentence or in some pivot/rebuttal moments.

Here we have the conclusion in the first sentence, and then the paragraph goes on to try to convince us that adolescents should have the right to vote.

But we're being asked about the second sentence, which was a Counterpoint, an Opposing Idea, a concession that the author is making to her potential opponents.

Concession language is like, Admittedly, X While it is true that X Granted, X Naturally, X is true.

Concessions get followed by pivots (unless they're set up with a word that signals a pivot, like "although / while / despite").

Here the 2nd sentence is followed by the pivot But and then the author begins her supporting ideas for the conclusion that adolescents should have the right to vote.

Goal

We're looking for something like, a potential objection a concession an acknowledgment of an opposing point

The statement that adolescents and adults are not the same plays which one of the following roles in the argument?

It presents the conclusion of
Wrong Role
The conclusion is the second half of the first sentence. A conclusion would never be prefaced with "Admittedly".
4% picked this
It makes a key word
Wrong Role
Nothing in this paragraph ever refines the meaning of a keyword. This answer sounds like it's part of how the author builds her case. The claim we're looking at is a potential objection that the author acknowledges before building her case.
2% picked this
It illustrates a consequence of
Out of Scope: consequence
The 2nd sentence doesn't illustrate a logical implication of a premise (as this answer says). It just mentions a potential objection to the idea of giving adolescents the right to vote, given that adults have the right to vote.
8% picked this
It distracts attention from the
Not a Distraction
The 2nd sentence is acknowledging that there's a difference between adults and adolescents. The entire argument is talking about adults, adolescents, and the right to vote. So the 2nd sentence is very germane to main topics.
1% picked this
Correct
It concedes a point that
Why this is right
The language of "admittedly / granted / naturally" signals that this claim is a concession, which means the author is acknowledging a potential objection to their ideas. This answer says that this concession goes on to actually be support for the conclusion. That's true, since the 3rd sentence is saying, "I agree that adults and teens are different, but because they're different, that means we can't expect adults to represent the interests of teens. Thus, teens should have the right to vote.
Skill tested: Role · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
86% 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