PrepTest 110, Section 3, Question 12
Politician: My opponents argue that the future of(96 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(9 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Compromise with your opponents doesn't necessarily mean giving up your principles.
I don't automatically agree that compromise is always good. If one person wants to burn down the city and another wants to protect it, burning half the city isn't a sensible solution. Whether working toward common goals helps depends on what people are proposing.
But that's not the politician's objection. The politician starts with the opponents' call for leaders to work together, then shifts to the idea of compromising the founders' principles. Those are two different uses of the word. One means reaching an agreement; the other means weakening or giving up a commitment.
Think of siblings agreeing to take turns with a toy. They've compromised over who plays first. That doesn't mean either child has betrayed a principle. Likewise, city leaders could settle a practical disagreement without abandoning the principles in the city's charter.
What we’re looking for
The critic gives us that distinction. Unless the leaders' differences really are differences of principle, the politician can't treat every agreement as a betrayal. We need to fill the blank with the word that changes meaning: compromise.
Working the answers
- A
The politician consistently uses betrayal to mean abandoning the founders' goals. The unsupported move is treating cooperation among the leaders as if it must involve that betrayal. The word whose meaning shifts along the way is compromise.
- B
Common goals are goals the leaders share. The argument doesn't use common in a second, different sense to reach its conclusion. This word doesn't explain the jump from working together to betraying the founders.
- CCorrect
At first, compromise means putting differences aside to reach an agreement. Later, compromising principles means giving those principles up or weakening them. An agreement doesn't have to do that. The politician needs a reason to think the leaders' disagreement concerns those principles before treating the two meanings as interchangeable.
- D
Principles refers to the commitments on which the founders based the charter. The politician doesn't change what principles means. The problem is assuming that the compromise the opponents recommend would compromise those principles.
- E
Opponents refers to the people urging the city's leaders to work together. Nothing turns on changing who those opponents are or what the word means. Their proposal is mischaracterized through the shift in compromise.
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.