Logical Reasoning

PT152 · S2 · Q4 In view of the considerable length

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

In view of the considerable length of the police chief’s tenure as head of the department, the chief should be held accountable for the widespread corruption in the department.

Conclusion (should = opinion)

The chief should be held accountable for the widespread corruption in the department.

Evidence

The chief's tenure has been considerably long (and the lack of incriminating evidence doesn't exculpate the chief).

Evaluate

The first claim is the premise, because the author is saying, .

We can predict a Missing Link answer here like,

If you've been head of a then you department for a long time should be and → held that department has responsible widespread corruption

The final sentence seems like padding. It's saying, .

Goal

Look for an answer that provides a principle set up in this form:

if XYZ, then should be held responsible

The trigger needs to be applicable to the chief, so it should mention "long tenure / lack of incriminating evidence" or both.

4.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the argument?

  1. Any supervisor who knowingly tolerates

    Bad Trigger Match

    This rule is worth considering because it has the right kind of Conclusion idea in the outcome: If knowingly tolerates then should widespread corruption ? be held amoung subordinates accountable

    2% picked this

  2. If a person has been

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This answer never gets off the ground because this principle would only prove that, "the chief could not help but know about the corruption". We're trying to prove that "the chief should be held accountable for the corruption". Those are two different enough ideas that we wouldn't bother reading this one closely on a first pass.

    6% picked this

  3. A supervisor should not be

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This one looks to have acceptable conclusion wording from a quick glance, but once we see the conditional indicator word "unless" (unless X = if it's not the case that X), we can see that the right side of the arrow would say "should not be held accountable". We want it to say that someone should be held accountable. This rule looks like this: If supervisor could not be then should not reasonably expected to ? be held know about corruption accountable

    1% picked this

  4. If corruption is rampant among

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This answer never gets off the ground because this principle would only prove that, "the chief cannot be expected to take corrective action". We're trying to prove that "the chief should be held accountable for the corruption". Those are two different enough ideas that we wouldn't bother reading this one closely on a first pass.

    0% picked this

  5. Correct

    If a person has been

    Why this is right

    This gives us a rule that says: If someone has then no excuse been in a position ? can absolve them of authority for of responsibility for a long time widespread corruption among subordinates Is the trigger applicable to our chief? Has she been in a position of authority for a long time? Yes, "she's had a tenure of considerable length as head of the department". Does the outcome of this rule support the conclusion? Yes, we're trying to support the idea that she should be held accountable for the widespread corruption in the department, and this says "no excuse can absolve her of responsibility for the widespread corruption among her subordinates". If we were worried that this answer sounded Too Strong, we want to remind ourselves that there's no such thing as Too Strong on questions like Strengthen, Principle-Strengthen, Weaken, Paradox, and Sufficient Assumption (all the questions that ask, "Which of the following, if true/valid/assumed ...")

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

    90% 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