Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Easy

PT144 S2 Q3 Explanation

Doris: I've noticed that everyone

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

TopicsAgree/Disagree

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

Start practicing free

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

Doris: I've noticed that everyone involved in student government is outspoken. So if we want students to be more outspoken, we should involved in student government.

Zack: Those who are in student government became involved precisely because they are outspoken in the first place. Encouraging others to become involved make them more outspoken.

What this question is testing

Agree/Disagree

Your task

Break the argument into its conclusion and evidence, then do exactly what the question stem asks with that structure.

Common trap

Answers that sound relevant to the topic but don't connect to the argument's actual reasoning.

Winning move

Predict what a right answer must do, then test each choice against the conclusion-evidence gap.

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

The question
3.

Doris and Zack disagree over

Answer choices

  1. No Support from Either0% picked this

    students should be more

    We couldn't derive from either paragraph that students should be more outspoken. The authors only talked about, "if you wanted to get people to be more outspoken, should you / shouldn't you do this thing."

  2. No Support from Either2% picked this

    students should be encouraged to become involved in

    We couldn't derive from either paragraph that students should be encouraged. Doris isn't saying students should be encouraged. She's saying, "If we want result X, then they should be encouraged". The difference between saying it conditionally and saying it factually is big. For example, "If we want to disappoint the kids attending, we should have crab cake for dessert at this party." vs. "We should have crab cake for dessert at this party"

  3. Correct96% picked this

    becoming involved in student government makes students

    Why this is right

    This is the implicit causal assumption we discussed. Doris agrees with this. The plan she's recommending assumes that by getting students involved in student government, we would be making them more outspoken. Zach disagrees, saying that getting people involved in student government "would do nothing to make them more outspoken".

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

  4. Agreement0% picked this

    all students who are involved in student government

    As we analyzed, Zach agrees to this first claim Doris makes.

  5. Too Strong: not unless2% picked this

    students will not become more outspoken unless they become involved in

    The person who would come closer to agreeing to this is Doris, but she is only thinking of joining student government as a possible way to get students to be more outspoken. This is claiming that it's a required way to get students to be more outspoken. Doris was never saying "if we want students to be more outspoken, we have to encourage them to become involved in student government".

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