Logical Reasoning

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

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

Editorialist: Landis, one of this cityʼs top elected officials, recently spent $10,000 to redecorate his office.

Conclusion

Regardless of the money's source, Landis is guilty of such violation. (i.e. Landis is guilty of violating official duties)

Premise

Landis spent $10k on redecorating his office.

Intermediate Conclusion

Spending $10k on redecorating his office is immoral.

Premise

So many people in this city live in poverty.

Evaluate

It's pretty weird / sloppy for LSAT to introduce an intermediate conclusion (signified by the opinion indicator 'clearly') into a Sufficient Assumption argument, since the correct answer on Sufficient Assumption to remove all loose ends and make the conclusion airtight.

So we should probably 'play along' with immoral as though it's an established premise.

In that case we need to get from to the conclusion of "Landis violated his official duties".

Goal

The traditional linking ideas would sound like, or .

But we should stay flexible and look for any answer choice that, when we combine it with what we know about Landis's situation, allows us to derive the idea that he "violated official duties".

24.

The editorialist's conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

  1. The money Landis used was

    Unrelated to Goal

    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% picked this

  2. It is immoral to spend

    Unrelated to Goal

    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.

    27% picked this

  3. Landis knew about or participated

    Unrelated to Goal

    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.

    9% picked this

  4. Correct

    Every public official has an

    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.

    53% picked this

  5. Had Landis not spent the

    Unrelated to Goal

    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.

    9% 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