Logical Reasoning

PT154 · S1 · Q10 If Thompson appeals to moderates

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

If Thompson appeals to moderates, his most ardent supporters will desert him and he will not have enough votes to win the election.

Evidence

If Thompson appeals to moderates, his most ardent supporters will desert him and he will not have enough votes to win the election. TAM → ~WE

However, if he does not appeal to moderates, these moderates will vote for his opponent and he will not have enough votes to win the election. ~TAM → ~WE

Conclusion

Either way, Thompson is bound to lose the election. ~WE

Evaluate

There aren't any clear premise or conclusion indicators in this argument. However, two of the statements in the argument are conditional statements. The final sentence is a prediction about the future which is based on those conditional statements. Predictions in LSAT arguments tend to be conclusions, and the overall structure of this argument points to the final sentence being the conclusion.

The conditional statements in the evidence describe a binary choice: Thompson can either appeal to moderates or not appeal to moderates. The evidence states that either choice will result in Thompson not having enough votes to win the election.

The conclusion confirms the outcome indicated by the evidence: it states that Thompson will lose the election.

Goal

Look for an answer which describes a binary situation where either option will result in the same outcome. The conclusion will confirm that outcome. Beware of answers with evidence describing a situation that is not actually binary—a situation where there are more than two possibilities. Also beware of answers with conclusions that don't simply confirm a necessary outcome that's described in the evidence.

10.

Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its reasoning to the argument above?

  1. If Chen supports building a

    Bad Evidence Match Bad Conclusion Match

    Chen support ? new art center ~Chen support ? ~new art center Therefore, new art center depends on Chen support In the original argument, either option in the evidence resulted in the same outcome. The evidence in this answer presents two different options with two different outcomes. Also, the original argument's conclusion asserted that one outcome would occur. This conclusion doesn't do that.

    0% picked this

  2. Correct

    If the company decides to

    Why this is right

    relocate ? lose employees ~relocate ? lose employees Therefore, lose employees This matches the structure and pattern of reasoning in the original argument.

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

    96% picked this

  3. If money is not appropriated

    Bad Evidence Match Bad Validity Match

    ~$ for roads ? potholes potholes ? councilors replaced Therefore, council must appropriate ~$ for roads The evidence in this argument contains two conditional statements that can be chained together. This is different from having two separate conditional statements that both lead to the same outcome. The conclusion in this argument is also based on an assumption that the city council must take action to prevent its members from being replaced.

    1% picked this

  4. If the city council approves

    Bad Evidence Match

    small tax increase ? restore pools large tax increase ? restore pools + rec center Therefore, improvement The evidence in this argument isn't describing a binary situation with only two possibilities. There are many possibilities besides approving a small tax increase or a large one. The city council could keep taxes the same or approve a reduction in taxes. The evidence also describes more than one possible outcome, unlike the original argument.

    2% picked this

  5. If Madsen decides to support

    Bad Evidence Match Bad Conclusion Match

    Madsen supports ? effective spokesperson ~Madsen supports ? easy to find other spokesperson Therefore, success does not depend on Madsen Unlike the original argument, the evidence in this argument describes more than one possible outcome. Also, the conclusion of this argument states that success does not depend on Madsen's choice. This is not the same as the original argument, which concludes that a certain outcome will occur.

    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