PrepTest 103, Section 3, Question 22
Whenever she considers voting in an election to(105 more words not shown)
If the statements in the(27 more words not shown)
- AIf there are(18 more words not shown)
- BIf she agrees(26 more words not shown)
- CIf she agrees(21 more words not shown)
- DIf she disagrees(25 more words not shown)
- EIf there are(35 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Kay can accept some disagreements. She just won't accept them when another candidate is as good or better by her rule.
Her rule counts important issues on which she disagrees. If she disagrees with a candidate on at least one issue, voting for that candidate is acceptable only when she disagrees with every other candidate on more issues. A candidate with two disagreements could qualify when every rival has three. Tying a rival at two would not qualify.
This is about the number of disagreements, not which candidate she finds most likable. It's also about what is acceptable, not what she must do. Nothing here commands her to cast a vote.
What we’re looking for
The passage also gives a specific mayoral election, where Medina alone agrees with her on the one important issue. But this question asks about any election covered by the principle. So set that particular lineup aside and test each proposed situation against the general rule. We need a conclusion the rule actually forces, not just a course of action Kay might choose.
Working the answers
- A
The principle applies when at least one issue matters to her. If no issue matters, that starting condition isn't met. The passage doesn't tell us that voting is then unacceptable. Don't turn the boundary of a rule into a new prohibition for situations outside it.
- B
Agreeing with every candidate on most issues still leaves room for one candidate to be better by Kay's comparison. Suppose there are five important issues. She agrees with one candidate on four and each rival on three. Everyone agrees with her on most issues, but the first candidate has only one disagreement while the rivals each have two. Her rule permits that vote.
- C
Agreement on only one issue might still be better than what every rival offers. If there are several important issues and all the other candidates agree with her on none, this candidate has fewer disagreements than every rival. Alternatively, that one issue could be the only important issue, leaving no disagreement at all. C's single fact doesn't establish that the vote is unacceptable.
- DCorrect
Each candidate has exactly three disagreements with her. Pick any candidate and compare: every rival also has three, not more. No candidate meets the requirement for an acceptable vote despite disagreement. The rule therefore makes voting for any of them unacceptable. This is a tie with disagreements, not a situation where she agrees completely with everyone.
- E
More disagreements than agreements with one candidate doesn't decide the comparison with the others. She could agree with that candidate on five issues and disagree on ten, while each rival gets four agreements and eleven disagreements. Ten is fewer than eleven, so voting for the first candidate is acceptable under her rule despite disagreeing on most issues. E evaluates one candidate in isolation when the rule compares candidates.
More Must Be True questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Must Be True questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.