Logical Reasoning

PT130 · S1 · Q7 Although many political candidates

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

Although many political candidates object to being made the target of advertising designed to cast them in an adverse light, such advertising actually benefits its targets because most elections have been won by candidates who were the targets of that kind of advertising.

Conclusion

Being the target of attack ads actually helps a candidate

Evidence

Most elections have been won by candidates who were the targets of attack ads.

Evaluation

How could an attack ad help you? It portrays you in a negative light. The conclusion seems fishy, but then how do we explain why most elections are won by people who were the targets of attack ads?

- maybe everybody is the target of attack ads! It could be true that the losing candidates in most elections are also the targets of attack ads

- maybe the winner won the election in spite of the attack ads, not because of them. We would probably say that , but that wouldn't make us say "having cramps actually benefited these runners". We just think the runners were powerful enough to overcome the cramps.

- maybe there's an element of reverse causality: who is most likely to be the target of attack ads in any election? The front-runner. So it's not that being the subject of attack ads is causing them to be the front-runner / winner. Being the front-runner is causing them to be the subject of attack ads.

Goal

We need something to replicate this Correlation vs. Causation move: Since most people who were X were also Y, it must be that Y helps them to be X. The correct answer will probably be vulnerable to the same objection of Reverse Causality.

7.

The pattern of flawed reasoning in the argument most closely parallels that in which one of the following?

  1. Although many people dislike physical

    Bad Conclusion + Premise Match

    The conclusion is a prescriptive claim, "people should exercise", which is not the same as the original conclusion's causal claim, "Y actually helps to achieve X". Also, the evidence is not a correlation but instead an actual causal claim that "Y is a good way to improve X".

    0% picked this

  2. Correct

    Although many actors dislike harsh

    Why this is right

    Close enough. It has this gist: Since most award-winners have had bad reviews, it must be that bad reviews help them to be award-winners. Is it also vulnerable to objections of Reverse Causality? Maybe a bit. We could definitely say that famous, successful actors who appear in more high profile projects than lesser-known actors are going to be bigger targets for bad reviews, just as more successful, front-running candidates are going to be bigger targets for attack ads.

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

    96% picked this

  3. Although many students dislike studying,

    Weak Premise Match

    This is close. It almost has the right structure. This is what we wanted: Since most X's were Y, it must be that Y helped them to be X. This is what we're getting: Since most studiers were people who passed, it must be that studying helped them pass. i.e. Since most X's were Y, it must be that X helped them to be Y. This is still a flawed structure, but it doesn't match the structure of the original. It also doesn't appeal to a similar type of objection. In the original, we were like, "How could attack ads be helping?" In correct answer B, we were like, "How could negative reviews be helping?" We don't have that same type of reaction here. We would feel sillier asking, "How could studying be helping?"

    2% picked this

  4. Although many film critics dislike

    Weak Conclusion + Premise Match

    This conclusion is that "Y is bound to be X", whereas the original was a causal claim that "Y helps something to be X". The original premise was that "most X's were Y", whereas this premise is "a large number of A's want Y".

    1% picked this

  5. Although many people dislike feeling

    Bad Conclusion Match

    The original conclusion was that "Y helps to cause X". This conclusion is that "Y must be acceptable to X."

    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