PrepTest 113, Section 4, Question 12
Pundit: People complain about how ineffectual their legislative(56 more words not shown)
The pundit's argument is flawed(6 more words not shown)
- Athe apparent ineffectuality(13 more words not shown)
- Bgovernmental resources that(13 more words not shown)
- Cconstituents would continue(21 more words not shown)
- Dlegislative compromise inevitably(6 more words not shown)
- Eonly elected public(8 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What did the voters expect their representatives to do?
The pundit's explanation is that representatives compete for limited government funds and must compromise to get them. I can picture that: a representative wants funding for a local project but has to accept less than the voters hoped for. What looks like failure might reflect the bargaining involved in the job.
My first question is whether that describes everything those voters elected the representative to accomplish. Suppose someone campaigned on changing a policy, not just obtaining funds for the district. Bringing money home might not fulfill that promise. I wouldn't assume every campaign had the same purpose.
What we’re looking for
The flaw question asks what the pundit takes for granted. My initial concern is the broad picture of what representatives were elected to do. As we check the answers, keep the actual conclusion in view: the pundit treats people's dissatisfaction as assurance that the representatives are simply doing their elected job.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
This identifies a different, clearer gap. The explanation begins with complaints about ineffectuality—representatives seemingly failing to get things done. The conclusion then covers dissatisfaction with representatives generally. Are those the same set of complaints?
Someone could be angry because a representative took a bribe or behaved dishonestly. Those are hypothetical examples, not accusations against any real politician. A complaint about corruption isn't explained away by saying the representative must compromise over funding.
The pundit needs to treat apparent ineffectuality as the only source of dissatisfaction for this explanation to cover every instance in the conclusion. If people can be dissatisfied for other reasons, their dissatisfaction doesn't assure us that the representative is merely doing the job. A catches the expansion that my initial focus on campaign promises didn't isolate.
- B
The argument concerns competing for the available funds. It doesn't need to establish that politicians are the only people who can make resources more abundant. Resources could increase for another reason while remaining scarce relative to competing demands. B introduces a claim about changing their supply, not the source of people's dissatisfaction.
- C
What people would feel after learning the explanation is a different question. The pundit offers an interpretation of their present dissatisfaction; that interpretation doesn't depend on them continuing to feel dissatisfied once it is explained. Perhaps some would become more sympathetic. That wouldn't repair or expose the jump from one kind of complaint to all dissatisfaction.
- D
The passage does mention compromise. But it doesn't need every compromise to upset people. Some compromises could be popular while the pundit still claimed that the dissatisfaction people do express comes from apparent ineffectuality. D requires dissatisfaction to follow from every compromise; the conclusion starts with dissatisfaction and tries to explain it.
- E
People could also complain about unelected officials, business leaders or anyone else. The pundit's claim is limited to how to interpret dissatisfaction with legislative representatives. It doesn't require them to be the only people who attract public criticism.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.