PrepTest 125, Section 2, Question 18
Columnist: Taking a strong position on an issue(55 more words not shown)
The columnist's reasoning most closely(8 more words not shown)
- AIt is reasonable(23 more words not shown)
- BTo ensure that(27 more words not shown)
- CAnyone who does(13 more words not shown)
- DOne should try(20 more words not shown)
- EIt is reasonable(18 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Think it through before you dig in. Once you've taken a strong stand, the passage says you're more likely to dismiss evidence against it. I can see the concern: wanting to defend your position can get in the way of giving new information a fair hearing.
But why must I understand the issue fully before taking a strong position? What if I'm willing to have a poorly informed opinion?
That might be a bad idea, but it's the missing link here. The columnist tells us what full understanding requires, then recommends waiting to take a strong stand until we've considered all important opposing evidence. To connect those thoughts, we need a rule saying we shouldn't take that stand without full understanding. Whether anyone can achieve that level of understanding is a further question; first, follow how this recommendation is supposed to work.
What we’re looking for
The question asks for the principle that best fits the reasoning. Look for that requirement. 'Don't take a strong position until you understand' is different from 'Once you understand, taking a strong position is reasonable.'
Working the answers
- A
This gives permission after the conditions have been met: if you fully understand and have considered the evidence fairly, a strong position is reasonable. The columnist's reasoning needs a restriction before that point: without full understanding, don't take the position. A doesn't rule out taking strong positions when those conditions haven't been met.
- B
This concerns someone who has already taken a strong position and tells that person how to handle evidence fairly. The columnist recommends doing the necessary thinking before taking the position. B doesn't connect a lack of full understanding with the recommendation to hold back.
- CCorrect
If you don't fully understand the issue, avoid taking a strong position. Now put that alongside the evidence: full understanding requires considering conflicting evidence impartially. If you haven't done that work, you haven't met a requirement for understanding, so you shouldn't yet take the strong position. This supplies the connection the recommendation needs.
- D
D tells us when to try to understand an issue: when doing so will help us avoid misreading or ignoring evidence. It doesn't tell us when to take a strong position. We need a principle connecting understanding with that decision, not another reason understanding might be useful.
- E
The existence of conflicting evidence isn't the requirement we're looking for. The columnist wants a person to consider the important conflicting evidence. E would make it unreasonable to take a strong position when no important evidence conflicts with it, even if the person has examined the issue thoroughly. That isn't the rule being used.
More Strategy of Argument questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strategy of Argument questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.