Logical Reasoning

PT21 · S2 · Q1 When politicians resort to personal

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

When politicians resort to personal attacks, many editorialists criticize these attacks but most voters pay them scant attention.

Conclusion

Political commentators cannot be excused for mudslinging.

Evidence

Political commentators should be engaged in sustained and serious debate about ideas and policies.

In such a context, personal attacks on opponents serve not to beat those opponents but to cut off the debate.

Evaluate

Whenever we're reading a Main Conclusion (or Role) argument, we remind ourselves of their inverted tendency -- more than 80% of the time, the conclusion will be earlier than the evidence.

Specifically, we'll usually find the conclusion (on these two question types) in one of two places: - the very first sentence - attached to a Pivot / Rebuttal

We read the first sentence very intentionally, asking ourselves, "Does this sound like the author's opinion?"

Here, the first sentence sounds like a fact. The 2nd sentence has two claims, the first of which is presented as a given ("everyone knows X"). But the second claim in the 2nd sentence is an opinion:

Politicians can be excused for mudslinging.

Okay, that could be our conclusion. Does the author go on to support/defend that idea? No, he immediately pivots into a different opinion:

Political commentators cannot be excused for mudslinging.

Does this opinion get supported / defended? Yes, the final two sentences combine to provide reasons why political commentators shouldn't be engaged in personal attacks / mudslinging (those are essentially synonyms)

Goal

Find the answer that best matches the meaning of the 3rd sentence, "Political commentators cannot be excused for mudslinging".

1.

Which one of the following most accurately states the main point of the argument?

  1. Personal attacks on opponents serve

    Unstated

    The paragraph never said this, so it can't be the conclusion. When the author says "politicians can be excused for mudslinging", we might think about what someone who believes that would be assuming. And it seems likely that an author excusing mudslinging amongst politicians would concede that personal attacks serve a useful purpose. But who cares. Our job isn't to be deriving invisible claims. This is Main Conclusion. Find the visible claim that is the conclusion and pick an answer that matches.

    4% picked this

  2. Correct

    Political commentators should not resort

    Why this is right

    This is the closest meaning match we get to, "political commentators cannot be excused for personal attacks / mudslinging". If we say, "Jeff, you cannot be excused for breaking up with Tony via text", then we're saying "Jeff, you should not have broken up with Tony via text".

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

    87% picked this

  3. Editorialists are right to criticize

    Unstated

    The paragraph never said this, so it can't be the conclusion. If anything, our author seems to condone politicians who resort to personal attacks, but we shouldn't even be giving this two seconds of thought. Our conclusion is about political commentators, not about editorialists or politicians.

    2% picked this

  4. The purpose of serious debate

    Unstated

    The paragraph never said this, so it can't be the conclusion. This is just tossing a word salad with language from the 4th and 1st sentences. The fact that this isn't about political commentators immediately means this can't be our conclusion.

    6% picked this

  5. Voters should be concerned about

    Unstated

    The paragraph never said this, so it can't be the conclusion. If anything, our author seems to condone politicians who resort to personal attacks, but we shouldn't even be giving this two seconds of thought. Our conclusion is about political commentators, not about editorialists or politicians.

    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