PrepTest 121, Section 1, Question 15
There are two supposedly conflicting hypotheses as to(63 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(8 more words not shown)
- AHaving success getting(13 more words not shown)
- BIt is impossible(12 more words not shown)
- CTo lead, one(15 more words not shown)
- DHaving a good(14 more words not shown)
- ETo be a(10 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A leader can influence public opinion and listen to it. Why make that an either-or choice?
Imagine a leader trying to persuade people to support a tax proposal while also listening to their concerns and changing part of the plan. Shaping opinion and responding to it can happen together. So I'm open to the author's claim that the two descriptions of great leadership needn't conflict.
Then the evidence changes the group we're talking about. We began with great national leaders, but now we hear about leaders who got their programs passed by the legislature. “Adroit” means skillful: those leaders were good at both shaping and reacting to opinion. Does passing an agenda make someone a great leader, though? What if the agenda was disastrous? And couldn't someone provide great leadership without getting much legislation passed?
What we’re looking for
Those questions expose the missing connection. For evidence about legislative success to tell us about great leadership, legislative success must at least indicate greatness. The necessary-assumption question asks for something the argument depends on. I'd look for that link, without demanding that the two descriptions mean exactly the same thing.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Success at getting programs passed is an indication of being a great national leader. That connects the group in the evidence to the quality under discussion. If legislative success told us nothing about greatness, examples of leaders getting programs passed and doing both things wouldn't support the conclusion about these accounts of great leadership. “Indicative” supplies the needed connection without saying that every successful program is good.
- B
This says shaping public opinion always requires reacting to it. The argument doesn't need that universal relationship. Perhaps some people shape opinion without listening, while the leaders used as evidence are skillful at both. The author only needs the two abilities to be compatible in relevant examples, not for one to be impossible without the other.
- C
This requires every leader to have at least one of the two abilities. Our argument is about whether these two accounts of great national leadership exclude one another. It doesn't have to rule out every other way to lead, and C doesn't connect passing legislation with greatness.
- D
Getting along with legislators might help a leader accomplish things. But this particular connection between good relationships and shaping public opinion isn't part of the argument's support. The leaders could gain passage of their programs in other ways. We need the link between that success and greatness, not an additional explanation of political influence.
- E
The argument doesn't depend on a rule against being influenced by the public. It expressly uses leaders who are skillful at responding to public opinion as evidence. E would restrict that responsiveness instead of connecting the evidence about legislative success to the claim about greatness.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.