Logical Reasoning

PT153 · S3 · Q2 Campaign manager: In campaign speeches

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

Campaign manager: In campaign speeches, our candidate has been reluctant to reveal all the unpleasant consequences of the policies he endorses, but this lapse can be justified.

Conclusion

This lapse can be justified. rephrase: It's justifiable that our candidate has been reluctant to reveal all the unpleasant consequences of the policies he endorses.

Evidence

There is no way to get elected while being fully candid.

It is vitally important that our candidate get a chance to help implement a political agenda that is very positive.

Evaluate

Our job on Strengthen + Principle is to pick a rule that helps get us from the Evidence to the Conclusion, so we usually anticipate a correct answer by thinking, "If Premise, then Conclusion".

The conclusion is always on the right side of the arrow.

justifiable that candidate → hasn't revealed all unpleasant consequences of his policies

Why is it okay for the candidate to hold back, to not be fully candid, about the consequences of his policies?

This author is saying,

Goal

It's hard to say how they'll word the trigger idea, but it seems like the campaign manager is saying .

2.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the reasoning in the campaign manager's argument?

  1. Correct

    Ethically questionable acts can sometimes

    Why this is right

    This is a really weird correct answer, because it's very weakly worded (unlike most correct answers on Strengthen + Principle), and because it doesn't have a tight language match for the parts of the argument. We were talking about any ethically questionable acts? Not explicitly, but we know that it's ethical to be honest. It's ethically wrong to lie. So it's ethically questionable to be somewhat misleading / somewhat evasive / not be fully candid about all the unpleasant consequences of his policies. Are we justifying his lack of candor based on good consequences? Yes, indirectly. We're saying that he needs to be less than fully candid so that he has a chance of winning, which would allow him to implement an agenda that is very positive. "The ends justify the means". It's worth shoplifting from this store if we're feeding our hungry mom. It's worth telling white lies to voters if it allows you to get into office and do good for the people. This answer only wins because all the other answers lose.

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

    91% picked this

  2. It is better to fail

    Opposite

    Someone following this principle would be fully candid and accept that doing so might prevent them from being elected. Better to fail while being ethical than to win unethically. The campaign manager is trying to justify the opposite of that behavior.

    1% picked this

  3. Legitimate ends obtained through illegitimate

    Opposite

    This candidate has legitimate ends; he wants to implement an agenda that is very positive. He's trying to get elected through illegitimate means (withholding the full truth from the electorate). According to this answer, his lack of candor would make his eventual political actions "become illegitimate". But we're trying to support the idea that his lack of candor "can be justified".

    1% picked this

  4. It is possible to accomplish

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This is very, very weak, so it would almost always be wrong. But this is comparably weak to the correct answer, so it's not the reason it's wrong here. Do we know that this candidate is not trusted? That's a bit of a stretch from the fact that he's been reluctant to reveal all the unpleasant consequences of his policies. Even if we forgave that overstretch of language, this answer would be saying, "he still might be able to accomplish his agenda". But the conclusion isn't addressing whether he will or won't be able to accomplish his agenda. The conclusion is about whether or not the lack of full candor is justified. This answer contains no language that matches the conclusion, whereas the correct answer has a match for "justified".

    6% picked this

  5. Voters can best be trusted

    Opposite

    This campaign manager is trying to justify a strategy in which the candidate withholds some of the details, thereby leaving the voters less than fully informed.

    1% 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