PrepTest 121, Section 1, Question 22
In a poll conducted by interviewing eligible voters(23 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(14 more words not shown)
- AThe positions taken(15 more words not shown)
- BKenner had held(9 more words not shown)
- CIn the year(14 more words not shown)
- DSix months before(11 more words not shown)
- EIn the poll,(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A poll says Kenner is ahead. Then Muratori wins. Before deciding the poll is inexplicable, I'd want to know whom the pollsters reached and what those people told them.
The interviews happened in people's homes. What if the people available and willing to talk weren't representative of all eligible voters? Perhaps the pollsters visited neighborhoods especially favorable to Kenner. Or perhaps some people supported Muratori but didn't want to say so to an interviewer. Someone can give a socially comfortable answer that doesn't match a private choice.
What we’re looking for
Those are possibilities, not facts about this election. They show ways the poll and the outcome could differ. For the explanation question, keep both facts in view: why did Muratori win even though a poll just before the election put Kenner significantly ahead? A general reason to like Muratori isn't enough unless it also helps explain why the poll pointed the other way.
Working the answers
- A
Different policy positions explain why voters might prefer one candidate to the other. They don't explain why the pre-election poll favored the eventual loser. We still need a difference between what that poll measured and what happened in the election.
- B
Holding office for years could make Kenner familiar, popular, or unpopular. B doesn't tell us which, and the question isn't simply why an incumbent might lose. We need to account for losing despite the favorable poll taken just before the vote.
- C
A scandal revealed after the poll could change voters' minds and explain the reversal. But C doesn't give us that sequence. The scandals happened in the year leading up to the election, so they may already have been known when the poll was taken. Bad news about Kenner needs the right timing to explain why the poll and the result diverged.
- D
The voting age changed six months before the election, while the poll occurred just before it. The newly eligible voters were already eligible when the pollsters conducted their interviews. D doesn't establish that these voters were excluded. An expanded electorate after a poll could explain a mismatch, but that isn't the order of events given here.
- ECorrect
This offers another route besides an unrepresentative sample or people hiding their preferences: Muratori's supporters may have been more likely to actually vote. Seeing the election as important gives us a reasonable basis for expecting greater effort to participate.
Imagine 60 eligible voters favoring Kenner and 40 favoring Muratori. If only 20 of Kenner's supporters vote but 35 of Muratori's do, Muratori wins. Those numbers are illustrative, but they show how a poll can accurately measure preferences and still differ from the result. E doesn't guarantee turnout or prove what happened. It supplies a plausible difference between supporting a candidate and showing up to vote for that candidate.
More Paradox questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Paradox questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.