PrepTest 117, Section 3, Question 23
Editorial: This political party has repeatedly expressed the(35 more words not shown)
The argument in the editorial(8 more words not shown)
- AIt is inconsistent(23 more words not shown)
- BA consistent course(21 more words not shown)
- CEven if a(14 more words not shown)
- DA consistent political(16 more words not shown)
- EMembers of one(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Maybe the party thinks the current amount is about right.
Calling increased education spending a worthy goal sounds favorable. But does that mean the party has to support an increase now? Someone could value a goal and still think the current situation calls for holding steady. That is the possibility I want the editorial to address before declaring the party inconsistent.
What we’re looking for
The editorial gives us two statements: increasing spending is a worthy goal, and the government should not increase spending. It treats those statements as incompatible. For the required assumption, keep that alleged conflict in view. We need a reason the party can't consistently hold both views. My initial thought is that the answer might rule out the possibility that the party regards the present level as appropriate. Let's check the choices rather than force that particular explanation onto them.
Working the answers
- A
This talks about a legislator's vote, while the argument is about a political party's stated policy. Those aren't interchangeable. An individual could vote against a particular bill for reasons other than opposing its goal. A rule about an individual's combination of statements and votes isn't the rule the editorial needs about these two policy claims.
- B
Nothing here requires consistent policy to reduce spending in the long run. A party might consistently support increases, decreases, or a stable amount. We're trying to establish whether two positions conflict, not which position would eventually save money.
- C
This actually points toward the objection. If a good goal need not be pursued, then a party could recognize a goal's worth and still oppose acting on it. That would help explain why the two statements might be consistent. The editorial needs to rule out that separation, not rely on it.
- DCorrect
This supplies a broader connection than my initial thought about the current spending level. Under D's rule, a consistent policy cannot call an action a worthy goal and also say that action should not be performed.
Apply it directly. The action is increasing education spending. The party calls that a worthy goal and says the government shouldn't do it. D treats that combination as inconsistent, exactly as the editorial does.
If a consistent policy could hold both positions, those two statements would no longer establish the editorial's charge. The argument therefore depends on disallowing that combination. We don't need an explanation of why the party favors its current spending level; we need the missing link between calling something worthwhile and supporting the action.
- E
This says members of a party never hold inconsistent views. The editorial doesn't need every party member to agree with every other member, or to be personally consistent on every issue. It assesses two positions attributed to the party. A blanket claim about members' views does not connect those positions.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.