PrepTest 123, Section 3, Question 23
Political candidates' speeches are loaded with promises and(38 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(9 more words not shown)
- AThe argument presumes,(17 more words not shown)
- BThe argument presumes,(12 more words not shown)
- CThe argument confuses(8 more words not shown)
- DThe argument overlooks(23 more words not shown)
- EThe argument overlooks(25 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Wanting to get elected doesn't make someone a liar. A candidate could believe in a policy, want to carry it out, and give a speech about it to win votes. Those motives can coexist. Of course some candidates may say whatever helps them win, but we haven't been given a reason to treat every campaign promise that way.
The argument points out what candidates hope to gain from their speeches and then declares their promises unreliable. Where is the evidence that the candidates won't follow through? Even if we grant that the speeches are selfishly motivated, that motive doesn't settle whether the promises can be trusted.
What we’re looking for
For the flaw question, I'd look for the possibility the argument overlooks: a person can have something to gain from making a promise and still be reliable about keeping it. We'll need to translate the more abstract answer language back into that straightforward objection.
Working the answers
- A
This concerns promises without selfish motives. Our argument takes promises it regards as selfishly motivated and declares them unreliable. It doesn't need to assume that every unselfish promise is reliable too. Perhaps both kinds can be unreliable. A describes a claim about the other group, not the unsupported move the author makes.
- B
“Never kept” is stronger than “unreliable.” An unreliable person might sometimes keep a promise; the problem is that you can't depend on it. So the author can call campaign promises unreliable without assuming that every selfishly motivated promise is broken. B overstates what the argument needs.
- C
The argument isn't mistaking an effect for what caused it. It identifies a motive for giving speeches and uses that motive to judge the promises in them. The missing support concerns why wanting to win makes the promises untrustworthy, not the order of cause and effect.
- DCorrect
Translate “need not be unreliable” as “could still be reliable.” An ulterior motive is another aim behind the promise—in this case, getting elected.
Now the answer reads naturally: a candidate could want the benefit of winning the election and still make promises we can trust. The argument overlooks that possibility. It treats the motive as enough to discredit the promise without showing that the candidate is unwilling or unlikely to keep it.
- E
Being worthy of office is a different question from being reliable about campaign promises. A candidate could have strengths or weaknesses beyond the promises made in a speech. The author concludes that the promises are unreliable; it doesn't conclude that every candidate making them is unworthy of office. E challenges a judgment the argument doesn't make.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.