Logical Reasoning

PT148 · S3 · Q10 Council chair: The traditional code

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

Council chair: The traditional code of parliamentary procedure contains a large number of obscure, unnecessary rules, which cause us to quibble interminably over procedural details and so to appear unworthy of public confidence.

Conclusion

It's imperative that we adopt the alternate code.

Evidence

The alternate code has been successfully used elsewhere for several years.

Even though the current code is entrenched and widely accepted, the current code contains tons of obscure rules, which cause us to forever debate tiny details. Meanwhile the public thinks we suck, and we can't be successful if the public lacks confidence in us.

Evaluate

A lot of arguments that assume a difference have this form:

This type of argument assumes that Z is different, in terms of reason Y.

Similarly, in this argument, our author is definitely assuming that this alternate code does not contain a comparable amount of obscure technicalities that will lead to ineffective quibbling over details. But maybe the alternate code is just as riddled with parliamentary complexities.

If we want to think beyond just that one possible objection, we can frame this with our Objection Mindset:

Given that ... this (widely accepted) code leads to endless arguing over tiny details, eroding the public's precious trust in the effectiveness of the council,

How could we say that ... we don't need to adopt the alternate code (there's some other option).

Well first of all, we could ask,

We could ask,

Since the author's conclusion goes out on a limb of, , we will be creating some weakening doubt with any storyline that makes it seem like we could keep the existing one or that we could choose a path other than adopting the alternate one.

Goal

Look for something saying or just as bad when it comes to "losing public confidence", or an answer suggesting an alternate viable path that shows we don't need to adopt the alternate code.

10.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the chair's conclusion?

  1. The council's use of the

    Too Weak

    This feels like it's trying to weaken by saying, "Sure, sure, the traditional code sucks, but at least we only need to use the problematic rules intermittently." That does somewhat degrade the importance of solving this problem, of switching codes, but it's not much of an objection. "Because this problematic thing is only intermittently problematic, let's not do anything about it." Given that the existing code is entrenched, there is some weakening effect to say that "if it's not that big a problem, do we really need to uproot the old code and switch to an alternate one?" But given that even the intermittent problematic nature is enough to cause enough quibbling that the council appears "unworthy of public confidence", it still seems like a problem worth solving.

    2% picked this

  2. Those who have adopted the

    Too Weak

    Answers that only reflect "at least one" data point (some, sometimes, can, may, might, not all, not always) are almost always wrong on Strengthen, Weaken, and Paradox, since they have such little impact. Does it hurt this argument to say, "There has been at least one instance in which someone used the alternate code to obscure their opponent's understanding of procedure"? No. There's been at least one person who died in an elevator, but that doesn't mean it's a compelling reason to not ride in an elevator.

    14% picked this

  3. Correct

    Revision of the traditional code

    Why this is right

    This gives us a way to argue the Anti-Conclusion. Nuh-uh, author. We don't need to adopt the alternate code. We have another viable option --- let's just wait to complete the already-begun process of fixing the existing code. That way we'll get rid of the problematic stuff you're worried about without uprooting an entrenched, widely accepted code.

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

    55% picked this

  4. It is not always reasonable

    Too Weak

    Answers that only reflect "at least one" data point (some, sometimes, can, may, might, not all, not always) are almost always wrong on Strengthen, Weaken, and Paradox, since they have such little impact. Does it hurt this argument to say, "There has been at least one instance in which it was not reasonable to adopt a different code in order to maintain public confidence?" Sure. It hurts the argument a tiny, tiny smidge. But it doesn't have nearly the force that the correct answer does.

    16% picked this

  5. The alternate code contains few

    Strengthens

    This actually affirms the difference that the argument was assuming. Since our author wants to get rid of the traditional code because of its obscure / unnecessary rules, he must be assuming that his proposed replacement doesn't suffer from that same problem. This answer helps to affirm that assumption, so it strengthens.

    13% 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