Logical Reasoning

PT13 · S4 · Q7 Murray: You claim Senator Brandon

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

Murray: You claim Senator Brandon has accepted gifts from lobbyists.

Murray

You're wrong to criticize Senator B for accepting gifts from lobbyists, because it's motivated by personal dislike for him, since you avoid criticizing other politicians for doing the same thing.

Jane

You're right that I dislike Senator B and that I have failed to criticize others for doing the same thing. But that doesn't mean Senator B doesn't deserve criticism (you can't excuse the senator's offense just because I am being a hypocrite).

Evaluate

This is a hard question to find agreement on, because we're reading a pair of antagonistic arguments. I would be looking for some overlapping idea they both seem to share or acknowledge.

Have they both acknowledged that Senator B has accepted gifts from lobbyists? Not really. Murray said, "you claim Senator B has done so" but he never crosses over to acting like the accusation is true.

But they have both acknowledged that Jane dislikes Senator B and that Jane has failed to criticize others for accepting gifts from lobbyists.

Have they both acknowledged that ? Not really. Jane seems okay with her inconsistency.

Goal

Feeling very unsure of where this is headed, I would just remind myself to beware of language that seems Too Strong or Out of Scope, and look for an answer I can derive from each person's statements (or from their combined statements).

7.

If Murray and Jane are both sincere in what they say, then it can properly be concluded that they agree that

  1. Senator Brandon has accepted gifts

    Unsupported by Murray

    We considered this idea in our evaluation. Murray has only said, "You claim Senator Brandon has accepted gifts". He never says anything that affirms that he thinks Senator B has in fact accepted gifts.

    11% picked this

  2. it is wrong for politicians

    Unsupported by Murray

    We can tell that Jane is bothered by the idea of accepting gifts from lobbyists (she thinks that her own inconsistency in criticizing people for this does not excuse the senator's offense). But we can't point to any wording where Murray affirms that it's wrong for politicians to accept gifts from lobbyists. We only know that he thinks it's wrong to be inconsistent in criticizing people for a certain behavior.

    13% picked this

  3. Jane’s criticism of Senator Brandon

    Too Strong: only

    Both parties agree that Jane is motivated at least somewhat by personal dislike. Neither party said anything strong enough to support that Jane is only motivated by personal dislike. It seems like she is motivated in part by thinking that accepting gifts from lobbyists is an offense. The fact that she dislikes Senator B makes it easier for her to speak out against him, but that doesn't mean the only reason she's criticizing him is that she dislikes him.

    9% picked this

  4. Senator Brandon should be criticized

    Unsupported for Murray

    This is a blend of both (A) and (B). We would need to know that Murray thinks 1. Senator B did in fact accept gifts from lobbyists and 2. It's wrong to accept gifts from lobbyists As discussed with (A) and (B), we can't derive either of those views from Murray's statements.

    6% picked this

  5. Correct

    one or more politicians have

    Why this is right

    Haha, what an impossible answer to predict. It has very lovably weak, provable language. Imagine what it would mean to disagree with this statement! (No politician ever has accepted gifts from lobbyists) We know that Murray thinks this is true because he points out that other politicians have done what Jane accuses Senator B of doing (accepting lobbyists' gifts). We know that Jane thinks this is true because she refers to the senator's offense, which we know is a reference to accepting gifts from lobbyists.

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

    62% 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