Logical Reasoning

PT121 · S1 · Q15 There are two supposedly conflicting

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

There are two supposedly conflicting hypotheses as to what makes for great national leaders: one is that such leaders successfully shape public opinion, and the other is that they are adept at reacting to it.

Conclusion (evidently = opinion)

Treating these hypotheses as mutually exclusive is a mistake.

translation: there isn't any conflict between the idea that what makes for a great national leader is the ability to shape public opinion and the the idea that what makes for a great national leader is being adept at reacting to public opinion.

even more translation: what makes a great national leader is both the ability to shape public opinion and the ability to adeptly react to public opinion.

Evidence

All leaders who have had success getting their programs passed by the legislature have been good at shaping public opinion and good at reacting to public opinion.

Evaluate

The author's goal is to prove that both shaping and reacting to public opinion are key features of great national leaders.

Her evidence, then, should be showing us examples of great national leaders who shaped / reacted to public opinion. Or it should be defining the necessary qualities of a great national leader and showing how shaping / reacting to public opinion fits those qualities.

However, the author's evidence doesn't once mention "great national leaders". That's a huge New Concept in the Conclusion. It only mentions .

The author must be assuming some missing link between "leaders who successfully get their programs passed" and "great national leaders".

Goal

We could consider other issues with the argument (f.e. even if great national leaders have been good at both shaping and reacting to public opinion, that doesn't necessarily show that those talents are what made them a great national leader. There might also be great national leaders who are left-handed, but that wouldn't show that .

But since there's just a big missing link between what sort of leaders we're talking about in the evidence and what sort of leaders we're talking about in the conclusion "great national leaders", we should primarily look for that missing link.

15.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

Correct
Having success getting programs passed
Why this is right
This provides the crucial link we were looking for between the evidence and the conclusion. The conclusion was about "great national leaders" while the evidence was about "leaders who are successful getting programs passed by the legislature". The author was assuming those ideas are connected. If we negated this answer and said, "having success getting programs passed by the legislature has nothing to do with being a great national leader", that would badly weaken the argument, because it would mean that the evidence was totally irrelevant to the conclusion.
Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
76% picked this
It is impossible to successfully
Too Strong: impossible
The author is only arguing that great national leaders are able to shape and react to public opinion. She isn't saying that shaping public opinion always in 100% of cases involves reacting to it. This answer says that "every single time you shape public opinion, you react to it".
11% picked this
To lead, one must either
Too Strong
Too Strong: must / any form of leading The author is never defining necessary characteristics to lead. She is talking about signature characteristics of great national leaders. If we changed this answer to say, "to be a great national leader, you must shape opinion, react to it, or both", then it would be much closer to correct.
10% picked this
Having a good rapport with
Out of Scope: "good rapport"
The argument doesn't get into how some leaders successfully get programs passed by the legislature. It might be through having a good rapport. It might be through having leverage over legislative members, such as blackmailing them or pressuring them. We don't know. The author isn't making any specific assumptions about how certain leaders get their programs passed.
2% picked this
To be a great leader
Opposite (if anything)
Our author thinks that great national leaders both shape public opinion and react to it. "Reacting to" public opinion doesn't necessarily mean being swayed by public opinion, but there's a lot of overlap there. So our author would probably believe the opposite of this answer.
1% 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