Logical Reasoning

PT145 · S2 · Q15 Political leader: In this political dispute

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

Political leader: In this political dispute, our side will benefit from showing a desire to compromise with the opposition.

Conclusion

Our side will benefit from showing a desire to compromise with the opposition.

Evidence

If they respond positively, a compromise will be reached.

If they don't respond positively, they will be held responsible for the failure to compromise and our side will benefit.

Evaluate

We have to prove that showing a desire to compromise will "benefit our side", but we're given two different (binary, exhaustive) possibilities for what might happen if we show a desire.

To guarantee the conclusion, we need to make sure that our side benefits no matter what.

We know that if they don't respond positively, they get blamed and we benefit (it said so explicitly).

But we don't know that we benefit if they respond positively. We only know that a compromise will be reached.

Goal

The only loose end in guaranteeing that we benefit is establishing that .

15.

The conclusion of the political leader's argument follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

  1. The political leader’s side has

    Doesn't Prove Benefit

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

    11% picked this

  2. The opposition is rarely willing

    Doesn't Prove Benefit

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

    5% picked this

  3. Correct

    The political leader’s side will

    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.

    73% picked this

  4. The opposition would benefit from

    Doesn't Prove We Benefit

    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.

    7% picked this

  5. The opposition will compromise if

    Doesn't Prove We Benefit

    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.

    4% 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