Since anyone who supports the

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

TopicsWeaken

Keep going in LSAT Lab

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

Free to start

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

Since anyone who supports the new tax plan has no chance of being elected, and anyone who truly understands economics would not support the tax plan, only someone who any chance of being elected.

What this question is testing

Weaken

Your task

Find the choice that makes the argument's conclusion less likely to be true.

Common trap

Answers that look negative but attack a claim the argument never relied on.

Winning move

Find the assumption the argument depends on, then pick the choice that undermines it.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question

The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument ignores the possibility that

Answer choices

Doesn’t Ignore Possibility10% picked this
truly understand economics do not support the
The conclusion is talking about exactly these type of people and saying that they’re the only ones who have a chance of being elected. The second claim in the argument is talking about the people (A) describes, so the author clearly doesn’t ignore the possibility that they exist.
10%
Not an Objection25% picked this
truly understand economics have no chance of
We can only weaken the conclusion by pointing to someone who has a chance of being elected but doesn’t truly understand economics. Since this answer is talking about about people who have no chance of being elected, there’s no way it can weaken.
25%
Not an Objection10% picked this
do not support the tax plan have no chance of
We can only weaken the conclusion by pointing to someone who has a chance of being elected but doesn’t truly understand economics. Since this answer is talking about about people who have no chance of being elected, there’s no way it can weaken.
10%
Correct49% picked this
do not support the tax plan do not truly
Why this is right
Since the author’s illegal move was this don’t truly ? Support understand econ tax plan we have to object by saying that “Left does not prove right. You can have someone that doesn’t understand economics who doesn’t support the tax plan.” We’re trying to beat the author’s conclusion by arguing that it’s not only economics people who have a chance of being elected. People who don’t understand economics also have a chance. The only requirement for having a chance is that you don’t support the tax plan, so we just need to say, “hey, some people who don’t understand economics don’t support the tax plan”.
Skill tested: Weaken · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
49%
Not an Objection6% picked this
have no chance of being elected do not truly
We can only weaken the conclusion by pointing to someone who has a chance of being elected but doesn’t truly understand economics. Since this answer is talking about about people who have no chance of being elected, there’s no way it can weaken.
6%

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