Logical Reasoning

PT148 · S4 · Q9 Pundit: It is good to have national leaders

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

Pundit: It is good to have national leaders voted out of office after a few years.

Conclusion

It's good to have national leaders voted out of office after a few years. (why should we believe that?)

Intermediate Conclusion

Because, it's usually early in a new government when reforms are undertaken. (why should we believe that?)

Evidence

Because, if they don't act quickly to solve a problem and then it becomes a problem, they either deny there's a problem or deny they could have done anything about it, so that they can avoid being blamed for it.

Evaluate

Whenever we're doing Main Conclusion, we prime our brain before reading the paragraph:

For these questions, the conclusion is usually - the first sentence or - a rebuttal

When we read this first sentence, we're asking ourselves,

The normative language "it is good to X" tells us that the first sentence is an opinion. If the rest of the paragraph tries to support that claim, then we'll know that the first sentence was the main conclusion.

The second sentence telegraphs that support is being provided by saying "the reason is that ..."

Goal

Just find an answer that replicates the meaning of the first sentence, since that was our Main Conclusion.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main conclusion of the pundit's argument?

If national leaders who fail
Never Stated
This ain't the first sentence. Furthermore, it's not even something that was said. The Main Conclusion is explicitly stated 99% of the time, so if we see an answer choice that says something that never even got said in the paragraph, we know it can't be correctly regurgitating the Main Conclusion (which did get said in the paragraph). Our conclusion is the first sentence, and this answer choice was never said by the author. They're trying to get people to pick an answer that feels like a Necessary Assumption / Inference answer.
5% picked this
National leaders who stay in
Never Stated
This ain't the first sentence. Furthermore, it's not even something that was said.
8% picked this
National leaders are most likely
Premise
This isn't the first sentence, it's one of the supporting ideas.
5% picked this
National leaders who immediately respond
Never Stated
This ain't the first sentence. Furthermore, it's not even something that was said.
0% picked this
Correct
National leaders should be removed
Why this is right
Yay, the first sentence. It's slightly different to say "it's good to have national leaders voted out after a few years" than to say "we should remove national leaders by voting them out after a few years". But it's pretty equivalent to say "It is good to do X" and "X should be done". More importantly, this answer choice is by far the closest meaning match we get for the first sentence, which was our main conclusion.
Skill tested: Main Conclusion · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
82% 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