Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT153 S2 Q24 ExplanationEditorialist: Landis, one of this cityʼs top elected officials

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

TopicsSufficient Assumption

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Free to start

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

Editorialist: Landis, one of this cityʼs top elected officials, recently spent $10,000 to redecorate his office. Many people believe that if Landis used city funds, then he misused public money, thereby violating his official duties. But Landis is guilty of such violation regardless of the moneyʼs source. so many people in our city live in poverty.

What this question is testing

Sufficient Assumption

Your task

Find the assumption that, if added, guarantees the conclusion follows.

Common trap

Answers that only partly bridge the gap, leaving the conclusion unproven.

Winning move

Identify the new term in the conclusion and pick the choice that links it to the evidence.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
24.

The editorialistʼs conclusion follows logically if which one of the following

Answer choices, explained

  1. Unrelated to Goal2% picked this

    The money Landis used was not his

    If an answer isn't giving us a rule that says "If you did X, then you violated official duties", then it won't allow us to derive the conclusion. Since the argument's conclusion said "regardless of the money's source", it's immaterial to this argument where the money came from.

  2. Unrelated to Goal26% picked this

    It is immoral to spend money on luxury items when there are people who

    If an answer isn't giving us a rule that says "If you did X, then you violated official duties", then it won't allow us to derive the conclusion. This answer is trying to cinch up the connection between Premise and Intermediate Conclusion, but we need to pretend that the "immoral" is already established and work on the actual goal of the question stem: proving the Main Conclusion.

  3. Unrelated to Goal10% picked this

    Landis knew about or participated in the decision to redecorate

    If an answer isn't giving us a rule that says "If you did X, then you violated official duties", then it won't allow us to derive the conclusion.

  4. Correct52% picked this

    Every public official has an official duty never to perform

    Why this is right

    Finally, we have a rule talking about whether someone violated official duties. This rule says: performed immoral action ? violated official duty Did Landis perform an immoral action? Yes, his action of spending $10k to decorate his office was clearly immoral. Thus, according to this rule, he violated one of his official duties.

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

  5. Unrelated to Goal9% picked this

    Had Landis not spent the money redecorating the office, it would have been used to help alleviate

    If an answer isn't giving us a rule that says "If you did X, then you violated official duties", then it won't allow us to derive the conclusion.

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