PrepTest 103, Section 3, Question 23
Whenever she considers voting in an election to(105 more words not shown)
According to the principle stated(8 more words not shown)
- Ait is acceptable(19 more words not shown)
- Bthe only unacceptable(17 more words not shown)
- Cit is unacceptable(9 more words not shown)
- Dthe only unacceptable(10 more words not shown)
- Eit is acceptable(9 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Medina is the only acceptable candidate. That doesn't mean Kay has to vote.
There is just one issue important to her in this mayoral election. Medina agrees with her on it, so there are zero disagreements. Legrand and Norton each disagree with her on that one issue.
Could she choose Legrand anyway? For a candidate she disagrees with, her rule requires every rival to disagree on more important issues. But Medina has fewer disagreements, and Norton has the same number. Legrand fails the comparison. The same reasoning rules out Norton.
What we’re looking for
This question is specifically about the mayoral election, so we can use that lineup. The prediction is straightforward: she may vote for Medina, and she may refrain from voting, but she may not vote for either of the other two. Keep “acceptable” separate from “required” as we read the choices.
Working the answers
- A
Medina is acceptable, but Legrand isn't. The word “either” allows a vote for each of them. Legrand has one disagreement, compared with Medina's zero, so he doesn't meet Kay's condition for supporting a candidate she disagrees with. A incorrectly allows one of the two forbidden votes.
- BCorrect
Voting for Norton or Legrand is unacceptable. Neither is better than every other candidate by the required disagreement count, while Medina shares Kay's view on the sole important issue.
The answer doesn't force Kay to vote for Medina. Abstaining remains available because her principle controls which candidate votes she accepts, without requiring her to cast one. B preserves both parts of our prediction: the two prohibited candidates and the absence of a duty to vote.
- C
The rule doesn't disqualify Medina. Kay has no disagreement with her on an important issue, so there is no disagreement that needs to be excused by a better-than-every-rival comparison. C wrongly extends the prohibition against the other two candidates to all three.
- D
This puts the candidates the wrong way around. Medina is the candidate Kay agrees with, while Legrand and Norton are the unacceptable choices. Saying Medina is the only unacceptable choice would both forbid the acceptable candidate and allow the two candidates the rule excludes.
- E
Kay cannot simply choose any of the candidates. The exception permitting a vote despite disagreement doesn't apply to Legrand or Norton: neither has fewer disagreements than every rival. Medina's acceptability doesn't make the other candidates acceptable too.
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.