Logical Reasoning

PT147 · S1 · Q14 Activist: President Zagel should resign

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

Activist: President Zagel should resign, because she is unable to govern effectively given the widespread belief that she rigged the election.

Activist's Conclusion:

President Z should resign.

Activist's Evidence

She's unable to govern effectively given the widespread belief that she rigged the election.

President Z's Conclusion

I must remain in office.

President Z's Evidence

Given that scandals have forced two presidents to resign over the last decade, if I were to also resign, the rest of the world would see us as a country whose political system is hopelessly unstable.

Evaluate

How could the activist respond to President Z's premise? Given President Z's concern with what effects her resignation could have on how the world sees this country, how can the activist argue that President Z should still resign?

Can he say, ?

He could probably also say,

Goal

Look for something that addresses Person 2's objection, from the point of view of Person 1.

In other words, if we're someone who thinks that President Z should resign, then how can we respond to her notion that ?

14.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the activist's argument in the face of President Zagel's argument?

  1. A country whose election procedures

    Unrelated to Goal

    This principle would help someone argue for election procedures that are more resistant to illegitimate manipulation. The activist's goal isn't to support a conclusion about election procedures. He's trying to support the conclusion that Zagel should resign.

    3% picked this

  2. The leader of a country

    Bad Trigger Match

    This provides a conditional rule whose outcome would match the activist's conclusion. So ... juicy! Worth considering. How does it look: leader X's resignation leader X is likely to improve ? should Country's A's reputation resign for political stability We'd love to use this rule to support/prove the activist's conclusion, but can we factually establish the trigger. Were we told that "If Zagel resigns, the country's reputation for political stability would improve"? No. Zagel, was arguing that "If she resigns, the country's reputation for political stability will be unacceptably low". Since we can't trigger this conditional, it does nothing for us.

    4% picked this

  3. If a president is involved

    Bad Trigger Match

    Like (B), this provides a conditional rule whose outcome would match the activist's conclusion. Worth considering. How does it look: leader X's is involved leader X in a scandal more ? should serious than scandals resign that forced previous leaders to resign Can we factually establish the trigger? No, we were never told that Zagel's scandal is more serious than were the previous scandals. Since we can't trigger it, this answer goes nowhere.

    1% picked this

  4. If it can be conclusively

    Bad Trigger Match Bad Conlusion Match

    Neither half of this rule matches up. The conclusion is that Zagel "should resign", not that Zagel "should be removed from office". That's enough to move on. We also couldn't establish the trigger, because we can't say that it's been "conclusively proven" that Zagel rigged the election.

    4% picked this

  5. Correct

    It is more important for

    Why this is right

    This answer is different from all the others because it's the only one that's a Comparison, not a Conditional. By itself that means nothing. Conditionals are more powerful types of claims, but they only have value if you can trigger them. Once triggered, then you're guaranteed the outcome. But if not triggered, then they do literally nothing. Meanwhile, Comparative answers are more like strengtheners than they are like provers. They won't firmly settle the conclusion, but they can tilt us more in that direction. Since all the other answers were useless to us, the strengthening value of this Comparison is more than that of any other answer. The activist could respond to Zagel by saying, "I agree that if you resign, it will be a bad look for this country on the global stage. But so what. You should still resign. It's more important for us to have a leader who can govern effectively, which we've established you can't, than it is to have other countries view the stability of our political system favorably." Since Zagel's resignation would have an upside and a downside, the Activist's argument assumes that the upside outweighs the downside. We often refer to this type of correct answer as Weighing Tradeoffs.

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

    88% 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