PrepTest 112, Section 4, Question 5
In a poll of eligible voters conducted on(35 more words not shown)
Each of the following, if(11 more words not shown)
- AOf Yeung's supporters,(18 more words not shown)
- BA third candidate,(16 more words not shown)
- CThe poll's questions(8 more words not shown)
- DOf the poll(23 more words not shown)
- EThe poll, conducted(25 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Who did the poll reach? If we surveyed eligible voters outside a Panitch rally, I wouldn't be surprised to find more Panitch supporters. That wouldn't mean the same balance held across the whole electorate.
Something could also change between the poll and the vote. Suppose a serious scandal became public on election morning. People who favored Panitch the night before might switch to Yeung. We don't know that this happened; it's another possible way a poll result and an election result could differ.
What we’re looking for
The question asks for the exception among explanations. Four choices will help account for Panitch leading this poll but losing the election. We want the one that doesn't help. Biased polling or a late shift could explain the surprise, but those aren't the only possibilities. We need to check what each choice actually changes about the comparison.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
The poll already included only eligible voters. A's comparison between eligible and ineligible supporters doesn't explain why the poll gave the wrong picture of that voting population. People who weren't eligible weren't part of the poll result to begin with.
If the poll had surveyed all supporters without checking eligibility, eligibility could help explain why some apparent support didn't turn into votes. But that isn't the poll described. A leaves the relevant gap between eligible voters' reported preferences and the election outcome unexplained.
- B
More support than any other candidate doesn't necessarily mean more than half the support. Suppose Panitch had 40 percent, Yeung 30 percent, and Mulhern 30 percent. Panitch would lead each opponent separately while a majority favored someone else.
If Mulhern withdrew and those supporters moved to Yeung, Yeung could finish with 60 percent against Panitch's 40 percent. The numbers are hypothetical, and the withdrawal doesn't guarantee that transfer. But it provides a plausible route from Panitch's earlier lead to Yeung's comfortable win. B therefore helps explain the result and isn't the exception.
- C
Panitch's staff could write leading questions that make Panitch look more appealing. Imagine a question describing Panitch's achievements favorably while mentioning only opponents' failures. Such wording could produce more stated support for Panitch than a neutral question would. We don't know that the staff did this, but their role gives us a possible source of poll bias.
- D
Caring about the election could affect whether supporters actually vote. Yeung's supporters were much more likely to call it important, so they might turn out at a higher rate. Panitch could lead among people willing to name a preference yet lose among those who show up. The percentages describe reported importance, not guaranteed turnout, but the difference offers an explanation.
- E
This supplies the kind of sampling concern we first imagined. A weekday downtown poll is better positioned to reach Panitch's supporters because a larger share of them work there. Yeung's support could be underrepresented in that location. The poll could accurately describe the people it reached while giving a misleading picture of the electorate.
More Paradox questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Paradox questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.