PrepTest 117, Section 3, Question 11
Many of the presidents and prime ministers who(84 more words not shown)
If all of the statements(11 more words not shown)
- AScholars and diplomats(15 more words not shown)
- BPrior experience in(22 more words not shown)
- CPrior experience in(21 more words not shown)
- DAn acute political(30 more words not shown)
- EA president or(26 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Maybe those inexperienced leaders had excellent advisers.
That would be my first response to the examples of successful presidents and prime ministers. A leader's lack of prior experience doesn't automatically show that expertise played no role; experienced people around the leader could have helped. But watch what this question asks. We're told to accept all the statements as true. We aren't being asked to challenge the explanation for the leaders' success.
So set that objection aside and sort out what the passage gives us. Some highly successful leaders entered office without foreign-affairs experience. That establishes that prior experience isn't required. The passage also says someone with political sense, discipline, and a strong ability to learn can quickly learn to conduct successful foreign policy. Finally, experience alone is described as being of little value to someone lacking all three traits.
What we’re looking for
I don't need to turn those statements into a stronger theory about what every successful leader must possess. I'll check the answers against the distinction the passage draws: experience isn't a requirement, and it isn't a guarantee. That doesn't mean it can never help.
Working the answers
- A
We aren't given a comparison of how much experience scholars and diplomats have with how much most presidents and prime ministers have. Calling them an inner circle doesn't supply those numbers. The statement may sound plausible, but the passage doesn't establish it.
- BCorrect
Prior experience is neither a guarantee nor a requirement for successful foreign policy. The successful leaders who lacked it show why it isn't required. And the final sentence rejects relying on experience alone: it will be of little value to a policymaker who lacks the listed traits. B captures both limits without saying experience is always useless.
- C
This says prior experience is required. But the passage begins with leaders whose successful foreign policies developed despite their having no prior experience when they took office. Those examples directly conflict with the requirement C imposes.
- D
Having all three traits gives someone a way to learn quickly. That doesn't establish that every successful leader must have each individual trait. Nor does the final sentence do so: saying experience has little value when all three are missing isn't saying success is impossible whenever even one is missing. D turns a useful combination into three universal requirements.
- E
The passage doesn't guarantee that an experienced leader will outperform an inexperienced one. The experienced leader might lack the traits the author values, while the inexperienced leader might learn quickly and do well. We cannot rank the two leaders' eventual results just from their years of prior experience.
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.