If a piece of legislation is the result of negotiation and compromise between competing interest groups, it will not satisfy any of those groups.
Conclusion (So)
We can see that the recently enacted trade agreement represents a series of compromises among the various interest groups that are concerned with it.
Evidence (because)
All those groups are clearly unhappy with it, and if a piece of legislation is the result of negotiation and compromise between competing interest groups, it will not satisfy any of those groups.
Evaluate
The first word out of the gate is "If". What does "if" mean to an LSAT student? That's right, it almost always means Conditional Logic (the condition attached to "if" goes on the left of the arrow).
When we're doing Flaw and we see any Conditional Logic, what should we be thinking?
We should be on the lookout for the #1 famous flaw of them all, confusing Necessary vs. Sufficient.
This argument was identical to this one: If a person wins the Kentucky state lottery, they will be very wealthy. So, we can see that Bob apparently won the Kentucky state lottery, because he is clearly very wealthy.
Our conversational objection to this argument would be, .
Our conversational objection to this argument we just read would similarly be, .
As soon as we see the conditional logic statement offered in the Evidence, for example, X → Y
We listen for the two variations on the Necessary vs. Sufficient flaw (reasoning via an illegal negation or via an illegal reversal).
We'd expect to hear, "Bob is Y. Thus, Bob is X" or, .
The conditional we were given was,
legislation resulted all the groups will from compromise → be unsatisfied between interest groups (unhappy)
Does this argument say,
Or does it say, ?
It did the first one. It just tries to hide it with two moves: 1. They supplied the Conclusion (So) before they supplied the Evidence (Because). 2. They didn't use a verbatim word match. They're forcing us to see that "unhappy" and "not satisfied" are interchangeable here. They're also forcing us to see that "results from negotiation and compromise between groups" is interchangeable with "represents a series of compromises among the groups".
In order to see past their shenanigans, we need to be on top of knowing that when we see "If", we're getting conditional logic. And we need to know that when we see conditional logic on Flaw questions, the authors will usually use a conditional rule in some illegal backwards or negated fashion.
Goal
Look for the formal answer, saying this author scrambled a condition that is Sufficient to prove that everyone would be unhappy with a condition that is Required in order for everyone to be unhappy.
Or look for the conversational answer saying, .