- Mon Apr 02, 2012 2:05 pm
#94569
Complete Question Explanation
Assumption. The correct answer choice is (A).
This is a cleverly constructed stimulus because at first glance it may sound reasonable, but when you look inside the logic you realize there is a flaw present.
The Citizen begins by complaining about the city council, and notes the majority of incumbents are running for reelection. The citizen's plan is to campaign against all the incumbents, with the exception of the incumbent from their own neighborhood. Now the funny part: the Citizen then claims that if everyone uses that same strategy, the membership of the council will be changed substantially. But, is that the case?
Consider for a moment what will occur if everyone follows the Citizen's advice: each citizen will ultimately vote for the incumbent representing their neighborhood. If that happens, what's the effect on the incumbents? That's right, each would get reelected because their neighborhoods would be voting for them, despite the campaigns against them from citizens not of their neighborhood. In other words, if everyone follows the Citizen's advice, not much will change.
The question stem is an unusually phrased one, and is actually looking for an assumption of the argument when it's the case that the membership is changed substantially. In conditional form, the stem appears as:
Membership changed substantially 
Correct answer
Since the correct answer is a necessary condition, this is an Assumption question.
Taking this further, you can predict and prephrase the correct answer. In this case, it's clear that if everyone follows the citizen's advice, very little will change. So, it must be the case that some of the other voters do not follow the Citizen's advice. And that is exactly what answer choice (A) is saying.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. This answer has been written to confuse, so you need to rephrase it in order to understand the meaning. In essence, this means "some other voters don't do the same thing as the Citizen" or "some other voters act differently than the Citizen." This is exactly what we are looking for, and this is the correct answer.
Answer choice (B): This is not something that a different outcome relies upon. whether or not most voters vote isn't critical, rather, it's how the voters vote that makes a difference. For example, you could have a minority of voters vote, and as long as some don't follow the Citizen there could still be substantial change.
Answer choice (C): This is not a relevant issue to making changes to the council. Even if few have run previously, and re-running now would be incumbents.
Answer choice (D): The problem with this answer is "all." The argument does not rely on everyone on the council being an incumbent; if some are not, that doesn't affect the advice and outcome here.
Answer choice (E): This is a red herring issue, designed to distract (in fact, the both the issues of "ruinous effect on municipal finances" and "she has the experience necessary to ensure that our neighborhood's interests are served" are distractors to the main story here). the experience or worthiness of the challengers is not key; following the Citizen's advice (or not) is the real issue.
Assumption. The correct answer choice is (A).
This is a cleverly constructed stimulus because at first glance it may sound reasonable, but when you look inside the logic you realize there is a flaw present.
The Citizen begins by complaining about the city council, and notes the majority of incumbents are running for reelection. The citizen's plan is to campaign against all the incumbents, with the exception of the incumbent from their own neighborhood. Now the funny part: the Citizen then claims that if everyone uses that same strategy, the membership of the council will be changed substantially. But, is that the case?
Consider for a moment what will occur if everyone follows the Citizen's advice: each citizen will ultimately vote for the incumbent representing their neighborhood. If that happens, what's the effect on the incumbents? That's right, each would get reelected because their neighborhoods would be voting for them, despite the campaigns against them from citizens not of their neighborhood. In other words, if everyone follows the Citizen's advice, not much will change.
The question stem is an unusually phrased one, and is actually looking for an assumption of the argument when it's the case that the membership is changed substantially. In conditional form, the stem appears as:
Membership changed substantially Correct answerSince the correct answer is a necessary condition, this is an Assumption question.
Taking this further, you can predict and prephrase the correct answer. In this case, it's clear that if everyone follows the citizen's advice, very little will change. So, it must be the case that some of the other voters do not follow the Citizen's advice. And that is exactly what answer choice (A) is saying.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. This answer has been written to confuse, so you need to rephrase it in order to understand the meaning. In essence, this means "some other voters don't do the same thing as the Citizen" or "some other voters act differently than the Citizen." This is exactly what we are looking for, and this is the correct answer.
Answer choice (B): This is not something that a different outcome relies upon. whether or not most voters vote isn't critical, rather, it's how the voters vote that makes a difference. For example, you could have a minority of voters vote, and as long as some don't follow the Citizen there could still be substantial change.
Answer choice (C): This is not a relevant issue to making changes to the council. Even if few have run previously, and re-running now would be incumbents.
Answer choice (D): The problem with this answer is "all." The argument does not rely on everyone on the council being an incumbent; if some are not, that doesn't affect the advice and outcome here.
Answer choice (E): This is a red herring issue, designed to distract (in fact, the both the issues of "ruinous effect on municipal finances" and "she has the experience necessary to ensure that our neighborhood's interests are served" are distractors to the main story here). the experience or worthiness of the challengers is not key; following the Citizen's advice (or not) is the real issue.
Dave Killoran
PowerScore Test Preparation
Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/DaveKilloran
My LSAT Articles: http://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/author/dave-killoran
PowerScore PodCast: http://www.powerscore.com/lsat/podcast/
PowerScore Test Preparation
Follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/DaveKilloran
My LSAT Articles: http://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/author/dave-killoran
PowerScore PodCast: http://www.powerscore.com/lsat/podcast/
)
