Logical Reasoning

PT146 · S1 · Q24 Families with underage children

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

Families with underage children make up much of the population, but because only adults can vote, lawmakers in democracies pay too little attention to the interests of these families.

Conclusion (thus / should)

Parents with underage children should be given additional votes to cast on behalf of their underage children in order to achieve fair representation for their families.

Evidence

These types of families make up much of the population, but because only adults can vote, lawmakers pay little attention to the interests of these families.

Evaluate

Most correct answers on questions with Principles in Answers sound like "If Evidence, Then Conclusion" linking ideas.

But that feels like a weird fit here. We could maybe say that the author is assuming, .

This conversation overall involves a Plan / Recommendation. Authors who endorse a plan are usually assuming several things: - the plan is feasible - people will cooperate with the plan as intended - the plan won't backfire - the plan addresses the main source of the problem

It seemed like the author was concerned with the problem that lawmakers in democracies pay too little attention to the interests of families with underage children, because only the adults can vote.

So the author seems to be assuming that a result of her plan would be that lawmakers would pay more attention to these families.

Thus, she seems to assume that, .

Goal

Ultimately, it feels hard to know where this one is going. Since the question stem sounds like 1/2 Principle, 1/2 Necessary Assumption, let's look for an answer the author is clearly thinking.

The correct answer, if negated, should sound like an objection to the Plan or to the reasoning.

24.

The argument requires assuming which one of the following principles?

  1. The amount of attention that

    Too Strong

    Too Strong: directly proportional Unrelated to Conclusion The idea of "direct proportionality" is so extreme that it's almost always wrong (unless we're doing a question type where we want powerful answers). A family with 5 voters has 25% more voters than does a family with 4 voters. Is this author saying that a lawmaker should give 25% more attention to that larger family's interests? No, that's too precise. The author is sad that lawmakers pay too little attention to families with underage children, but she isn't assuming an extreme principle that says that # of voters = amount of attention. Also, this principle would support a conclusion about how much a lawmaker should pay attention. The actual conclusions are saying, "parents should be given extra votes / this would achieve fair representation". They have nothing to do with instructing lawmakers on how much attention to pay.

    11% picked this

  2. Parents should not be given

    Opposite

    This author wants parents to be given extra votes to cast on behalf of their children. So our author thinks that parents should be given responsibility for making a (voting) decision on their child's behalf. This answer is saying, If the child is mature ? parents shouldn't be enough to decide wisely resp for deciding

    2% picked this

  3. The parents of underage children

    Too Strong: always Bad Conclusion Match

    The word "always" is super dangerous when we're asked what must be true/assumed. The author merely is saying that parents should be given extra votes to cast on behalf of their kids. The author never offers any guidance as to how parents should use these votes, so we definitely can't accuse her of thinking that in 100% of cases, they parents should consider the children's best interests. The conclusions weren't instructing parents how to vote; they were suggesting that we give parents extra votes.

    3% picked this

  4. It is not fair for

    Weak Conclusion/Evidence Match

    The author does seem to think that the current situation is not fair representation for families with underage children. But is that because lawmakers are favoring the interests of voters over non-voters? Not quite. Families with underage children still have voters in the family (the parents). The argument was just saying that lawmakers pay too little attention to the interests of these families. In addition to the fact that the background isn't really about voters vs. non-voters, the conclusion isn't trying to say "unfair", so it doesn't seem like a good match for either part of the argument.

    9% picked this

  5. Correct

    A group of people can

    Why this is right

    This is a Defender style Principle, which is very rare. How might we object to the author's plan? We might say something like, "Wait -- who's to say that the parents will actually use those extra votes to vote the way their kids wanted them to? What if the kids were Bernie Sanders lovers, but once the parents are inside the privacy of a voting booth, they go rogue and use those extra votes for Hillary Clinton? That doesn't seem like the kids are being fairly represented!" This answer is ruling out that objection. Lovably, it relates to the language in the Main Conclusion: "this plan would achieve for these families fair representation". The author is saying that a family with underage children would get fair representation if the parents had extra votes to cast on behalf of their children. Those families are groups, where some members (the parents) would be voting on behalf of others (the underage children). So, yes, the author clearly thinks that parents voting on behalf of children can still be considered fair representation. If we negated this answer, it would be a huge objection: "If some members of a group are voting on behalf of other members, then we can't say that a group is fairly represented".

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

    75% 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