Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT6 S3 Q19 Explanation

Amy McConnell is considering running

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

TopicsMust be False

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Free to start

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

Amy McConnell is considering running for election against the incumbent, Gregory Lutz. If Lutz has a large campaign fund, then he is already far ahead, and McConnell will not run against him. If Lutz does not have a large campaign fund, McConnell will scrutinize Lutz’s record for any hints of scandal that If Lutz has a clean record, however, McConnell will not run against him.

What this question is testing

Must be False

Your task

Break the argument into its conclusion and evidence, then do exactly what the question stem asks with that structure.

Common trap

Answers that sound relevant to the topic but don't connect to the argument's actual reasoning.

Winning move

Predict what a right answer must do, then test each choice against the conclusion-evidence gap.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
19.

Given the information in the passage, which one of the following must

Answer choices

  1. Possible9% picked this

    Lutz does not have a large campaign fund, and McConnell does not

    If L doesn't have a big fund, then M will search L's record for damaging info. But if L ends up having a clear record, then M will not run. So this is definitely possible.

  2. Possible2% picked this

    Lutz’s record contains items that would increase McConnell’s chances of winning, and she

    In a world where L doesn't have a big fund and doesn't have a clean record, we would find that L's record contains things that would increase M's chance of winning and she would run against him. So this world is possible.

  3. Possible28% picked this

    Lutz’s record contains scandalous items, and McConnell does not run

    If L has a big campaign fund, then M will not run, regardless of whether L has a scandalous record or not. So it's possible that L has a big campaign fund (and a scandalous record) and M doesn't run.

  4. Correct59% picked this

    Lutz’s record contains nothing that would increase McConnell’s chances of winning, and she

    Why this is right

    One of the conditionals said If there's anything of it increases M's a scandalous nature ? chances of winning in Lutz's record So by contrapositive, if there's nothing that would increase M's chances of winning, then there's nothing of a scandalous nature in Lutz's record. If there's nothing of a scandalous nature, then Lutz has a clean record, which guarantees that M will not run against him. This answer is essentially finding a sneaky way of contradicting #2 - If L has a big fund, M won't run. - If L has a clean record, M won't run. - If L doesn't have a big fund and doesn't have a clean record, M will run.

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

  5. Must Be True2% picked this

    Lutz has a large campaign fund, and McConnell does not run

    If L has a big fund, then it's a must be true inference that M will not run.

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