PrepTest 102, Section 3, Question 10
There are rumors that the Premier will reshuffle(39 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(11 more words not shown)
- AWhen a conclusion(27 more words not shown)
- BA hypothesis is(20 more words not shown)
- CIt is possible(16 more words not shown)
- DEven if in(28 more words not shown)
- EIf two statements(33 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Maybe this is the week the Premier does things differently.
Every previous cabinet reshuffle was preceded by meetings with senior cabinet members. That gives us a reason to expect meetings again, but it isn't an unbreakable rule. The Premier could change the procedure, perhaps because an emergency calls for a quick decision. We aren't told that happened; it's a possibility showing why the past pattern doesn't prove the rumor false.
The author does leave room for uncertainty: the rumors are most likely false. No meetings have taken place or are planned, so something we'd expect to see before a reshuffle is missing.
Now the question asks for the principle of reasoning the argument uses. We aren't selecting our objection about changing the pattern. We're describing the author's reason for doubting the rumor.
What we’re looking for
My prediction is: if a rumored event were really about to happen, we'd expect its usual preparation to have happened or be planned. When that preparation is absent, the rumor becomes less convincing. Match the reshuffle to the hypothesis and the meetings to the missing expected sign.
Working the answers
- A
This concerns a conclusion that follows logically from its premises: if the premises are all true, the conclusion cannot be false. The reshuffle argument instead uses a past pattern to make a probability judgment. The past meetings and absence of new meetings could both be true while the Premier reshuffles without meeting this time. A's deductive relationship isn't the one being used.
- BCorrect
Translate the abstract terms. The “hypothesis” is that the Premier will reshuffle the cabinet this week. The expected “state of affairs” is meetings with senior cabinet members beforehand. To say that a state of affairs “does not obtain” means it isn't the case—not that someone failed to acquire an object.
The meetings aren't happening or planned, although the earlier reshuffles give us reason to expect them if the rumor were true. Their absence therefore undermines the hypothesis. B captures that evidential judgment without pretending it establishes a certainty.
- C
The author isn't saying the rumor could be false despite all the evidence supporting it. The author presents the missing meetings as evidence against it and concludes that it is probably false. C describes uncertainty in the face of support, whereas this argument identifies a reason for doubt.
- D
This sounds like our initial reservation: a past pattern needn't continue unchanged. But the question asks for a principle employed by the argument, not a criticism we could make of it. D also describes past circumstances causing an event. We only know the meetings preceded reshuffles, not that the meetings caused them.
- E
The argument doesn't begin with two statements known to be incompatible, establish one as false, and discuss whether the other can be deduced. A reshuffle and the absence of meetings aren't established as impossible together. The author instead uses the absence of something expected to make a probable judgment about the rumor.
More Strategy of Argument questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strategy of Argument questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.