Logical Reasoning

PT145 · S2 · Q6 Political analyst: Several years

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 analyst: Several years ago, McFarlane, the military dictator, had Brooks, the former prime minister, arrested on charges of corruption.

Conclusion (So)

Brooks will have few supporters in this country.

Evidence

Brooks was arrested on charges of corruption several years ago, by McFarlane (the military dictator).

Brooks is now pardoned and has agreed to join McFarlane's government.

Almost all of McFarlane's supporters believe Brooks is guilty of corruption. And almost all of McFarlane's opponents will oppose anyone who agrees to join his government.

Evaluate

The goal is to prove that Brooks will have few supporters, and the author is trying to do so by arguing via a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" style of binary.

She's trying to make the case that,

M's supporter → think B is guilty of corruption

M's opponent → don't support anyone agreeing to join M's govt (as B has)

We want to ask ourselves whether both of those roads end in the idea of "Brooks does not have their support", and then we also want to ask whether those are the only two starting points.

The author has established that if you're an opponent of M, then you will oppose Brooks, since she has agreed to join his government.

But the author hasn't established that if you're a supporter of M, that you'll oppose B. She's only established that if you're a supporter of M, you think Brooks is guilty of corruption.

So there is a Missing Link assumption happening here that,

If we were trying to think of Objections (for the sake of Defender assumptions that would rule them out), we'd be trying to think of ways to argue that even given this evidence, it's possibly that Brooks has many supporters.

One possible objection could be,

Goal

Look for a link from "If believe guilty of corruption, then don't support" or look for an answer ruling out the possibility that we're failing to consider people in this country who are neither supporters nor opponents.

6.

The political analyst's argument depends on the assumption that

  1. Brooks’s joining McFarlane’s government inappropriately

    Out of Scope: inappropriately / legitimacy

    This argument has nothing to do with what effect, if any, Brooks will have by joining McFarlane's government. And it has nothing to do with the author's opinion, if any, on whether Brooks should join the government. The argument is strictly about tallying up the current number of supporters for Brooks in this country.

    2% picked this

  2. there is less corruption in

    Out of Scope Comparison: less corruption

    This argument has nothing to do with comparing timeframes or administrations. The author is never judging current or past levels of corruption. The argument is strictly about tallying up the current number of supporters for Brooks in this country.

    1% picked this

  3. Brooks’s political positions do not

    Too Strong: do not overlap

    This actually seems to go against the facts that are presented. It would be weird for Brooks to agree to join McFarlane's government if absolutely none of her political positions overlapped with McFarlane's. If we negated this and said, "At least one political position of Brooks overlaps with that of McFarlane", that wouldn't weaken the argument in the slightest. That wouldn't help us argue that Brooks actually has many supporters in this country.

    8% picked this

  4. Correct

    most people in the country

    Why this is right

    This gets at the False Choice, the imagined binary, that the author was assuming. She was thinking, "Almost all the supporters oppose Brooks. Almost all the opponents oppose Brooks. So I guess that almost everyone opposes Brooks". This is assuming that "Almost everyone is a supporter or an opponent". If we negate this answer and say, "Yo, author -- most people in this country are neither one of McFarlane's opponents nor his supporters", that would badly weaken the argument. That would mean the argument hasn't told us anything about how most citizens feel about Brooks. So she might have many supporters, maybe even a majority of citizens! Suppose we said this argument, "Almost all the baseball fans at Jackson High like Toronto Blue Jays the most. Almost all the basketballs fans at Jackson High like Toronto Raptors the most. Thus, most students at Jackson High have a favorite team that is based in Toronto." That would be assuming that "most students at Jackson High are either baseball fans or basketball fans". If most students aren't, then the evidence hasn't told us anything about the majority of students. It might be that more than 50% of students only watch football and their favorite team is based in the U.S.

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

    88% picked this

  5. the charges on which Brooks

    Out of Scope: unfounded charges

    This argument has nothing to do with judging whether it was legit or not for Brooks to have been arrested on corruption. Whether the author believes those charges were unfounded or substantive makes no difference. The argument is strictly about tallying up the current number of supporters for Brooks in this country.

    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