PrepTest 123, Section 2, Question 22
Editorialist: News media rarely cover local politics thoroughly,(49 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(8 more words not shown)
- AParticular acts of(22 more words not shown)
- BLocal political business(15 more words not shown)
- CThe most important(25 more words not shown)
- DMore-frequent thorough coverage(17 more words not shown)
- EIf resident participation(18 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
If I contact a local official and nothing happens, I can see why I might stop bothering. That's the reaction the editorialist is describing: people are less inclined to participate when they have less reason to expect a positive response.
How does the passage get us there? Thin news coverage and secretive political business tend to separate local politicians from the people they represent. That isolation reduces the chance of a positive official response, which discourages residents from getting involved.
I might question whether local government always works that way. In a small town, perhaps I could speak to a council member much more easily than to a national representative. But this question asks what the editorialist's statements support. We need to work with the account we've been given, not replace it with a different experience.
What we’re looking for
So I'd look for a consequence of that account. Better coverage could address one of the things contributing to the isolation and discouragement. I'd be careful about promising too much: removing one obstacle doesn't establish that officials will usually respond or that everyone will suddenly participate.
Working the answers
- A
Less isolation could improve the chance of a positive response. But would a positive response become likely? That's more than we know.
Imagine the chance improves from 10 percent to 20 percent. That's a real improvement, but a favorable response is still not the likely outcome. The passage describes something that lowers the chance; it doesn't establish that reducing the isolation would make the chance high enough for A.
- B
The editorialist describes what secrecy does. This answer tells us what local government should do. To make that recommendation, we'd need a judgment about whether encouraging participation should take priority over whatever reasons there might be for secrecy. The passage doesn't supply that judgment.
- C
The chance of a positive response influences participation, but is it the most important influence? We don't get a comparison with other considerations. Someone's available time, interest in an issue, or other circumstances could matter more. C turns one factor into the top factor without support.
- DCorrect
In the editorialist's account, poor coverage contributes to isolation, and that isolation helps discourage participation. More frequent, thorough coverage would address that source of discouragement.
Notice how little the answer claims: reduce at least one source. It doesn't say the other source—secretive political business—disappears. It doesn't guarantee favorable responses or widespread participation. It gives us the limited improvement supported by the chain the editorialist describes.
- E
This changes the direction of the explanation. The passage says isolation helps discourage participation. E says removing the discouragement would itself cause less isolation. That doesn't follow. Residents might feel encouraged to participate for some other reason while officials remain isolated because political business is secretive and coverage is poor. We weren't told that changing the later effect fixes the earlier cause.
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.