PrepTest 115, Section 4, Question 6
A politician can neither be reelected nor avoid(45 more words not shown)
If the statements above are(12 more words not shown)
- AThe prominent politicians(6 more words not shown)
- BIf there had(9 more words not shown)
- CNo politician is(14 more words not shown)
- DThe prominent politicians(9 more words not shown)
- ESome politicians who(9 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
There are two consequences here, and the conclusion gives us only one of them. A politician known to be involved in a serious scandal cannot be reelected and cannot avoid censure by colleagues. Censure is an expression of disapproval; it isn't the same as censoring someone's speech.
What we’re looking for
These politicians have just been shown to be involved in a serious scandal, so the rule applies. The author correctly concludes that they won't be reelected. For the must-be-true question, we can also predict the other consequence: their colleagues will censure them. We don't need to challenge the rule or speculate about real politicians. Accepting the stated facts gives us the answer.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
The politicians cannot avoid censure. They meet the rule's condition: their involvement in a serious scandal is now known. Both consequences apply, even though the author's conclusion mentions only their failure to win reelection.
- B
Avoiding a scandal doesn't guarantee winning an election. A politician could lose because the economy is doing badly, because the politician's party is unpopular, or for some other reason. The passage identifies a reason reelection is impossible; it doesn't say removing that reason guarantees success.
- C
This makes a serious scandal the only possible basis for censure. We aren't told that. Colleagues might also censure someone over a political dispute or other conduct. The rule says that a known serious scandal brings censure, not that every censure must come from a known serious scandal.
- D
We know the conspiracy ended in a scandal. We don't know that it ever benefited these politicians. It could have been a failure from the beginning. An initial benefit is an extra part of the story that the passage never supplies.
- E
Perhaps some politicians get away with misconduct, but the passage doesn't establish that any do. Its rule concerns politicians whose involvement is known, and these particular politicians have been exposed. We cannot infer the existence of a separate group that avoids both detection and censure.
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.