Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Medium

PT145 S2 Q15 Explanation

Political leader: In this political dispute

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

TopicsSufficient Assumption

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

Political leader: In this political dispute, our side will benefit from showing a desire to compromise with the opposition. If the opposition responds positively, then a compromise will be reached. If they do not, then they will be a compromise and our side will benefit.

What this question is testing

Sufficient Assumption

Your task

Find the assumption that, if added, guarantees the conclusion follows.

Common trap

Answers that only partly bridge the gap, leaving the conclusion unproven.

Winning move

Identify the new term in the conclusion and pick the choice that links it to the evidence.

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

The question
15.

The conclusion of the political leader’s argument follows logically if which one of the

Answer choices

  1. Doesn't Prove Benefit11% picked this

    The political leader’s side has a desire to compromise with

    Whether we have a desire to compromise is a separate language/meaning issue from whether reaching a compromise would benefit our side.

  2. Doesn't Prove Benefit5% picked this

    The opposition is rarely willing to compromise with the political

    This answer doesn't convince us that "reaching a compromise" would benefit our side, so it wouldn't allow us to prove the conclusion.

  3. Correct73% picked this

    The political leader’s side will benefit if a compromise

    Why this is right

    If they don't respond positively, they get blamed, we benefit. If they respond positively, a compromise will be reached, and we will benefit. So we have proven that either way you slice it, if we show a desire to compromise, our side will benefit.

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

  4. Doesn't Prove We Benefit7% picked this

    The opposition would benefit from showing a desire

    This answer doesn't convince us that "reaching a compromise" would benefit our side, so it wouldn't allow us to prove the conclusion. It only establishes that the other side would benefit.

  5. Doesn't Prove We Benefit4% picked this

    The opposition will compromise if the political leader’s side shows a

    Since we don't know whether reaching a compromise will benefit our side, this answer wouldn't allow us to prove the conclusion. If this answer had said "the opposition will not respond positively, if we show a desire to compromise", it would prove the conclusion, because it was already established that if they don't respond positively, we benefit. But this answer forces us into the scenario where it's still unknown whether our side will benefit.

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