Logical Reasoning

PT124 · S2 · Q24 Newscaster: In order for the

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

Newscaster: In order for the public to participate in a meaningful way in the current public policy debate, one requirement is that the issues be stated in terms the public can understand.

Conclusion (so)

The public might be able to participate in a meaningful way in the current public policy debate.

Evidence

For the public to participate in a meaningful way in the current public policy debate, the issues must be stated in terms the public can understand.

The mayor's speech just stated these issues in a way that the public can understand.

Evaluate

This is a reasonable, if not valid argument.

We see a lot of repeated language, so this would be a good contender to diagram into abstract variables.

We have a conditional premise, that provides a requirement:

A → B

We have a factual premise, "The mayor stated the issues understandably", which establishes that the requirement has been met.

B.

And then we conclude with very weak language that the sufficient condition might still happen, "We might have meaningful participation".

A is possible.

If a necessary condition hadn't been true, it would prove the sufficient condition isn't true. By establishing that a necessary condition is true, we're only establishing that the sufficient condition is still possible.

Goal

Let's look for something like P1: A requires B. P2: B is true. C: thus, A might be true.

24.

Which one of the following most closely parallels the newscaster's argument in its reasoning?

  1. One must know Russian if

    Bad Conclusion Match: cannot

    We know our conclusion should have very weak wording, saying that something is possible. This conclusion is certain that something is not true.

    1% picked this

  2. In order to reach one’s

    Bad Conclusion Match: must have

    We know our conclusion should have very weak wording, saying that something is possible. This conclusion is saying that something is definitely true.

    4% picked this

  3. One cannot confuse the majority

    Bad Evidence / Conclusion Match

    This doesn't match our original structure. We're given a conditional, but the premise talks about the trigger and the conclusion talks about the outcome. In the original argument, the premise talks about the outcome and the conclusion talks about the trigger. P1: A requires B. Being a good teacher requires not-confusing most of your students. P2: B is true. Hugo wants to be a good teacher (A) C: thus, A might be true. Hugo might not-confuse most of his students (B)

    7% picked this

  4. In order to discover the

    Bad Conclusion Match: must have

    We know our conclusion should have very weak wording, saying that something is possible. This conclusion is saying that something is definitely true.

    14% picked this

  5. Correct

    One must at least have

    Why this is right

    This matches our original argument. We get a conditional premise. The premise talks about the outcome and the conclusion talks about the trigger. P1: A requires B. Surviving in a very cold climate requires warm clothing. P2: B is true. Jerome has warm clothing. C: thus, A might be true. thus, Jerome might survive in very cold climate

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

    73% 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