Logical Reasoning

PT150 · S3 · Q5 Pundit: Clearly, the two major political parties

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: Clearly, the two major political parties in this city have become sharply divided on the issues.

Conclusion (Clearly)

The two major political parties in this city have become sharply divided on the issues.

Evidence (for example)

In the last four elections, the parties were separated by less than 1% of the vote.

Evaluate

The author is looking at a statistic and interpreting the cause behind it, so we can use our Explain Curious Fact mindset.

Curious Fact ... how come the parties have been separated by less than 1% of the vote for the last four elections?

Author's Explanation ... It's because they've become sharply divided on the issues.

We want to consider these 2 questions: 1. Could there be some Alternate Explanation for that curious fact? 2. How plausible is the Author's Explanation?

In this case, they might meld together more than usual, because one Alternate Explanation for why elections are so close could be that there isn't much difference between the two parties. If Democrats and Republicans were both offering essentially the same position on a lot of issues, then how would a voter choose between them?

If the parties were sharply divided on issues, for example , then voters would have a clear choice in terms of whom to vote for, so you wouldn't see a lot of near-ties unless voters themselves were half for drastic action and half for no action.

Goal

Look for an answer either saying that the author has failed to consider alternate explanations for why the last four elections have been close, or for an answer suggesting that polarized positions would seemingly favor tilted elections.

5.

The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument

  1. confuses the cause of the

    Not Reverse Causality

    The author thinks that the sharp division has caused there to be close elections. This answer, then, is proposing the objection that, "No, no, author -- it's actually close elections that have caused sharp division." That objection doesn't make much common sense. Why would close elections cause political parties to be sharply divided? Furthermore, this answer is always wrong. By "this answer", we mean one in which it confidently claims that Cause and Effect have been reversed. Why is it always wrong? We're not allowed to act like we know the real story. We're only allowed to object by saying, "Hey, you're failing to consider that what might be going on is reverse causality". We're fine picking an answer that's less certain of itself: "the argument fails to consider that the purported cause might really be the effect".

    9% picked this

  2. presumes, without argument, that sharp

    Out of Scope: good/bad

    There are no value judgments anywhere in the argument, so the author isn't making any claims or assumptions about whether what he's describing is a good or bad thing.

    1% picked this

  3. has a conclusion that is

    Not Circular

    This describes one of the 10 Famous Flaws, Circular Reasoning, in which the evidence restates or assumes the truth of the conclusion. This answer is almost always wrong. Clearly, the first sentence of this argument (the conclusion) is not a restatement of the second sentence. This answer describes an argument like, "Cats are better than dogs. After all, when it comes to cats vs. dogs, cats are superior."

    3% picked this

  4. fails to indicate how what

    Out of Scope: other cities

    There's nothing about other cities in the argument, so the author isn't making any claims or assumptions about whether what he's describing is also happening in other cities.

    1% picked this

  5. Correct

    takes for granted that an

    Why this is right

    Since this begins with "takes for granted", we can ask ourselves, "Did the author make this assumption?" Since it describes a 2-part reasoning move, takes for granted that X indicates Y we could also ask ourselves, "Does the Evidence part of this answer match the actual Evidence. Does the Conclusion part of the answer match the actual Conclusion?" The premise indicates/implies/entails the conclusion, so we're asking ourselves, "Did the premise talk about an almost even division in votes?" Yes. It says in the last four elections the parties were separated by less than 1%. "Did the conclusion talk about a sharp division on issues?" Yes, it says that the two parties have clearly become sharply divided. Both halves match, so this accurately describes something the author has assumed. We might be taken aback with how boring this answer is. It doesn't seem to really explain why this is a bad assumption to make. It just says, "the author is assuming that her Premise indicates her Conclusion". If we think that the Premise is unconvincing proof of the Conclusion, then it's fair to say the argument is flawed by thinking that the Premise indicates the Conclusion. The test writers seem to have been expecting us to think that the evidence suggests the opposite of what the author concluded. As we discussed in the evaluation, it probably makes more sense to think that the two parties are barely distinguishable from each other, if the votes end up being so close. The answer seems written to imply the ironic move the author made, "assumes that an almost even division implies a sharp division?" [raises one eyebrow skeptically]

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

    87% 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