Logical Reasoning

PT148 · S4 · Q5 A commission has been formed

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

A commission has been formed to report on the nation's preparedness for a major natural disaster.

Evidence (Since)

The commission's report [on disaster preparedness] will not be effective unless the commission speaks with a unified voice.

Individual members of the commission have repeatedly expressed their own opinions about disaster preparedness in the news media well in advance of completion of the report.

Conclusion (will not)

It [the report] will not be effective.

Evaluate

Part of the challenge in this question lies in accurately identifying the premises (evidence) and the conclusion. It's useful to notice that the last statement is a prediction. Predictions are normally conclusions.

It's also helpful that the final sentence follows a common pattern:

Premise Indicator - Premise - Comma - Conclusion

The premise indicator "since" at the start of the final sentence is followed immediately by the premise about individual members expressing their own opinions. There's a comma after that premise, followed by the conclusion that the report will not be effective.

Once we identify the conclusion, we can go back and see how the first and second sentences connect to it. The first sentence seems like background information. It doesn't support or contradict the conclusion.

The second sentence is a conditional statement that could potentially support the conclusion:

If the commission does not speak with a unified voice, the commission's report will not be effective.

~unified voice → report not effective

In order for this statement to fully support the argument's conclusion, we need to know that the commission is not speaking with a unified voice. But that's not what the other premise tells us. The other premise just states that individual members of the commission have expressed their own opinions in the news media.

If we learn that these individual members of the commission are expressing contrasting opinions in the news media—in other words, they are not speaking with a unified voice—we can connect that with the conditional premise, and the conclusion would follow logically:

~unified voice

~unified voice → report not effective

Therefore, report not effective

Goal

Expect a correct answer to state that the individual commission members are not all expressing the same opinions in the news media—in other words, they're not speaking with a unified voice.

The conclusion of the argument follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

Commission members who have expressed
Out of Scope: commitment
The commission members' "commitment to producing" an effective report is a totally new idea in this answer choice that was not mentioned in the stimulus. It's not the same as actually producing an effective report. If some commission members express this commitment, that's also not clearly related to the committee speaking with a unified voice. There is no definite, airtight way to connect this idea to the other premises or the conclusion. It is outside the scope of the argument.
0% picked this
News organizations should not provide
Out of Scope: should
The argument is strictly about what commission members are doing and whether the report will be effective or not. When reading the argument it's natural for us to have opinions about these things being good or bad, but that is not what the argument itself is actually about. What "should" happen is outside the scope of the argument.
2% picked this
Correct
The commission will be able
Why this is right
Hang on a minute. This isn't what we expected. But it does involve speaking with a unified voice. And a premise did state that commission members were speaking out in the news media "in advance of completion of the report." This answer is a conditional statement. "Only if" is the conditional logic indicator: unified voice → ~opinions public before completed The contrapositive is: opinions public before completed → ~unified voice We were told that the commission members are making their opinions public before the report is completed. Combining that information and the conditional premise with this answer allows the conclusion of the argument to follow logically: opinions public before completed opinions public before completed → ~unified voice ~unified voice → report not effective Therefore, report not effective
Skill tested: Sufficient Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
85% picked this
If commission members had not
Out of Scope: public speculation
Public speculation about the commission members' views is a new idea in this answer choice that was not mentioned in the stimulus. There is no definite, airtight way to connect this idea to the other premises or the conclusion. It is outside the scope of the argument.
1% picked this
The commission's report will not
Out of Scope
What happened before the commission was formed is a totally new topic in this answer choice that was not mentioned in the stimulus. We don't know how this relates to the members' current opinions or the commission speaking with a unified voice. There is no definite, airtight way to connect this topic to the other premises or the conclusion. It is outside the scope of the argument.
11% 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