Logical Reasoning

PT122 · S1 · Q20 The people most likely to

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

The people most likely to watch a televised debate between political candidates are the most committed members of the electorate and thus the most likely to have already made up their minds about whom to support.

Conclusion (Hence)

Winning a televised debate does little to improve a candidate's chances of winning the election.

Intermediate Conclusion (Thus)

The people most likely to watch a debate have mostly already decided whom to support.

Evidence (Furthermore)

Debate watchers are the most committed members of the electorate.

After a debate, uncommitted viewers are generally undecided about who won.

Evaluate

How could we argue that winning a debate can do something significant to bolster your chances of winning the election?

The author's case covers two groups of viewers: 1. the ones most likely to watch are the most committed members of the electorate / they've made up their minds before they even watch the debate.

We could try to argue that even if you've "made up your mind", your voting decision could be changed by what you see in the debate, but that's a pretty hard angle.

2. The viewers who haven't committed to a candidate usually can't tell who won.

We could try to argue that even though they can't tell who won, they can tell who they liked more, and so that could lead them to vote for someone. But the conclusion isn't about appearing in a debate; it's specifically about winning a debate. So if they don't know who won, then it's hard for us to argue that the 'winner' gets a bump.

Are there any other voters to consider?

It seems like there are viewers who are somewhat committed (they lie in between "most committed" and "uncommitted"). Maybe they are swayed by the winner of the debate?

And then there are people who didn't watch the debate at all. Could they be swayed by hearing about who won the debate?

Goal

Since the question stem prefaces all the answers with "fails to consider", we can basically just treat this as a Weaken question.

Let's look an answer pointing to a way that winning a debate win could help a candidate.

20.

The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism because the argument fails to consider the possibility that

  1. watching an exciting debate makes

    Bad Objection

    The conclusion is about whether winning a debate helps the winner, and an exciting debate could raise turnout on both sides without favoring whoever won. It's not clear that the uptick in motivation to vote favors the winner of the debate.

    4% picked this

  2. Correct

    the voting behavior of people

    Why this is right

    Both premises concern people who watched the debate. So we want to be receptive to this answer because it is considering a group of voters that the author never addressed in her evidence. If nothing else, it creates doubt, by showing that the author's evidence was incomplete: it failed to discuss all possible segments of voters. If we add our own common sense that reports about a debate normally do crown a winner, then this answer has some legs. People who are on the fence and aren't watching the debate may hear that Candidate X won the debate and then decide to vote for X. So this gives us a storyline for how winning a debate could help you win the election.

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

    71% picked this

  3. there are differences of opinion

    Bad Objection

    This is a very wishy-washy answer. The muddier we make the concept of "winning" the debate, the harder it'll be for us to argue that winning does something significant to help the winner's chances of winning the election. If anything it supports the author's premise that uncommitted viewers cannot tell who won. It offers no route by which a debate win would gain votes.

    3% picked this

  4. people’s voting behavior may be

    Bad Objection

    This answer is about the effects of random comments made during the debate, but we need an answer that's tied to the effects of winning the debate. Unpredictable influence is not the same as influence that favors the winner. A candidate's comments might sway voters in any direction, including against the person judged to have won. The conclusion is specifically about whether winning helps, and this answer does not connect to it.

    20% picked this

  5. people who are committed to

    Opposite

    Committed voters sticking with a candidate who lost the debate is exactly what the author expects. It reinforces the premise that debate watchers have already made up their minds and that the debate does not move them.

    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