Logical Reasoning

PT17 · S2 · Q11 P: Because an elected official

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

P: Because an elected official needs the support of a political party to be effective, the independent candidate for the legislature cannot possibly be an effective legislator is she wins.

P's Conclusion

An indie candidate can't possibly be an effective legislator in office.

P's Evidence (because)

To be effective, elected officials need the support of a political party.

Q's statement

According to your logic, if someone (like our current legislator) has the support of a political party, they will be effective.

Evaluate

When they ask us to criticize the 2nd person's response, the 2nd person is usually guilty of some bad listening.

They might misrepresent what the first person said, fail to respond to their substantive concern, or say something irrelevant.

In this case, Q is misrepresenting what P said.

P said

Q accuses P of saying .

This is the classic Necessary vs. Sufficient confusion. P identified "support from a political party" as something necessary to be effective. P never suggested that such support was sufficient to guarantee that someone would be effective.

P is saying "Without support, they won't be effective" not "With support, they're bound to be effective" as Q is saying.

Consider the difference between saying and saying

Goal

Look for an answer calling out the Necessary vs. Sufficient distortion. P only said that support was required, not that it would guarantee effectiveness.

11.

Which one of the following is the best criticism of Q’s statement?

  1. It simply contradicts P’s claim

    Out of Scope

    At no point does Q contradict either of P's claims. Contradicting P would sound like - elected officials don't need political party support to be effective or - the indie candidate could be an effective legislator if she wins

    6% picked this

  2. It does not consider the

    No Impact

    Q's statement had nothing to do with independent candidates, so it's true that Q didn't discuss this possibility, but it wouldn't be an objection to Q's statement, since Q's statement had nothing to do with independent candidates. Q doesn't consider the possibility that hot dogs are weird, but that doesn't mean that's a good criticism of Q's statement. Q is objecting to (and misunderstanding) P's first claim, not the one dealing with independent candidates.

    2% picked this

  3. It fails to prove a

    Famous Flaw Bait: Equivocation

    There's never been a correct answer on Flaw that complained that an author failed to provide a precise definition (but you do see this style of answer a fair amount). When a Flaw answer puts a term in quotes, we tend to think it's offering us the famous Equivocation flaw, in which an author uses a given term in two completely different ways. So while Q does not provide any definition for effective, neither did P. They both seem to have a general understanding of what it means to be an effective politician (presumably it means being able to get legislation passed). And we know that Q is botching the meaning of P's first claim, so our best criticism will be calling out that.

    3% picked this

  4. It presupposes what is to

    Famous Flaw Bait - Circular

    When a flaw answer says that the author's premise restates the conclusion or assumes the truth of the conclusion (presupposes what is to be proved), that's Circular reasoning. That answer is almost never correct. Q is NOT trying to prove that legislators must have support to be effective. Q is trying to disprove an imaginary claim that "support guarantees effectiveness".

    6% picked this

  5. Correct

    It mistakenly interprets P to

    Why this is right

    Here's our Necessary vs. Sufficient answer. They're using "assures" as a synonym for Sufficient, because a sufficient condition guarantees/assures something else. If P had said that support from a political party assures effectiveness, then Q's response would be a logical counterexample. But P said that support is needed for effectiveness, so Q's response is irrelevant.

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

    82% 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