Logical Reasoning

PT123 · S2 · Q22 Editorialist: News media rarely cover local

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

Editorialist: News media rarely cover local politics thoroughly, and local political business is usually conducted secretively.

Statements

News media rarely Local political cover local politics business is usually thoroughly. conducted secretively.

⬇ ⬇

These factors each tend to isolate local politicians from their electorates.

⬇

This has the effect of reducing the chance that any particular act of resident participation will elicit a positive official response.

⬇

Which in turn discourages resident participation in local politics.

Evaluate

When we're reading the stimulus on Most Supported, the #1 thing we look for is causal language, and we had several instances here:

- These factors each tend to isolate - This has the effect of reducing - which in turn discourages

Whenever we see multiple Causal or Conditional claims, we analyze whether they can chain together, and we definitely have a chain of causality here.

Goal

We'd anticipate that the correct answer will probably reward us for understanding this chain of causality by giving us an answer that tests some indirect connection.

In other words if we know "A >> B >> C >> D"

then we'll probably get a head to tail answer like "A leads to D"

a flipped head-to-tail answer like "less A would lead to less D"

or some other remote connection like "B leads to D"

22.

Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the editorialist's statements?

  1. Particular acts of resident participation

    Too Strong: likely

    If politicians were less isolated from their electorate, then particular acts of resident participation would be more likely to elicit a positive response from local politicians, but to say that the response would be likely goes too far.

    15% picked this

  2. Local political business should be

    Out of Scope: should

    The statements do not discuss what should or should not be the case.

    10% picked this

  3. The most important factor influencing

    Too Strong: most important

    The statements imply that the chance that a resident’s participation will elicit a positive official response is a factor that influences a resident’s decision to participate, but to say that it’s the most important factor goes too far.

    7% picked this

  4. Correct

    More-frequent thorough coverage of local

    Why this is right

    This answer relies on a causal chain from rare coverage of local politics to discourage resident participation in local politics. So reducing the thing that starts the causal chain will reduce the effect as well.

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

    64% picked this

  5. If resident participation in local

    Unsupported Relationship

    This answer attempts to make causality flow backwards, via a pseudo-contrapositive. Causality doesn't really work in reverse, or contraposed. If we know that A causes B, we can't say "B causes A". We also can't say, "a lack of B would cause a lack of A" (although we could support "a lack of B would indicate a lack of A")

    5% 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