Logical Reasoning

PT152 · S2 · Q24 Political scientist: When a bill

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

Political scientist: When a bill comes before a legislative body, the majority of the representatives are usually prepared to vote for it.

Statements

conditionals

bill comes most reps before → ready to vote legislative body for it

bill unlikely to compromise law get majority → usually possible → passes approval

bill is super important to → compromise large bloc impossible of reps

Evaluate

We got three conditionals, signified by the sufficient trigger "when". Do any of them chain together?

Not really.

Goal

I would feel pretty nebulous about where this question is trying to go. There is a contrast being made between situations in which compromise is / isn't possible, and the causal difference-maker is whether or not the majority is against the bill / whether the bill concerns something important to lots of reps.

Normally on Must Be False, we're trying to either contradict a conditional or contradict an available inference. Since we didn't come up with any possible inferences, the answer will probably contradict one of the three conditionals:

- bill comes before body, but most are not ready to vote - majority is unlikely to approve bill, but compromise/passage is unlikely to happen - bill concerns something of fundamental importance, but compromise does happen

24.

If the political scientist's statements are true, which one of the following must be false?

Compromises regarding issues of fundamental
Out of Scope: important compromises
The passage talked about situations in which compromise over issues of fundamental importance to lots of reps was impossible. This answer, since it's speaking about situations when compromises do occur is apparently talking about a situation we never covered in this paragraph. We can't contradict something we never covered.
11% picked this
Most bills that do not
Compatible
We could say that "Most bills that at first are unlikely to get approval by the majority and aren't of fundamental importance to a large bloc of reps will pass into law". So this answer could very likely be true. To pick this answer, we would need textual evidence that "most unimportant bills never pass into law", and we certainly don't have ammunition for that.
10% picked this
Correct
Most bills concerning issues of
Why this is right
This contradicts the final sentence. If a bill involves something fundamentally important to large blocs, then compromises are impossible. Contradicting a conditional involves presenting a situation in which the trigger is true but the outcome is false. This answer presents a situation in which a bill is of fundamental importance, but compromise isn't impossible.
Skill tested: Must be False · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
69% picked this
Most bills concern issues of
Out of Scope: most are important
We can't quantify what percent of bills are / aren't of fundamental importance. Since we don't know the proportion, we can contradict this fact.
5% picked this
Most bills do not concern
Out of Scope
Out of Scope: most are not important We can't quantify what percent of bills are / aren't of fundamental importance. Since we don't know the proportion, we can contradict this fact.
5% 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