PrepTest 129, Section 1, Question 14
If legislators are to enact laws that benefit(53 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(8 more words not shown)
- ALegislation will not(11 more words not shown)
- BLegislatures that enact(7 more words not shown)
- CThe passage of(11 more words not shown)
- DLegislators considering a(19 more words not shown)
- EThe inability of(20 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A bill's appealing title doesn't tell us what it will do. Legislators need to consider its actual consequences if they are to enact laws that benefit their constituents. That requirement makes sense. It doesn't mean that considering consequences guarantees a good law, but the argument says beneficial lawmaking requires it.
Now locate the point the author is trying to establish: contemporary legislatures fail to enact beneficial laws. The final sentence is offered as the reason. Career-minded legislators present proposals in polemical, or combative, terms that arouse either repugnance or enthusiasm in their colleagues.
Why would those reactions keep the legislators from considering consequences? Someone could strongly dislike a proposal and still carefully examine its effects. Someone could enthusiastically support it after thinking through those effects. Without another connection, the evidence about emotions doesn't establish that the requirement from the first sentence goes unmet.
What we’re looking for
For the necessary assumption, I want the link the argument relies on: legislators experiencing those reactions don't consider what the law will actually do. That would connect the final sentence's evidence to the initial requirement and explain the conclusion in the middle.
Working the answers
- A
Reducing concern for their careers isn't established as the only route to beneficial laws. A career-minded legislator could decide that soberly presenting a bill and considering its effects is a better way to advance a career. The argument concerns the current presentation and reactions; it needn't rule out every way that career interests and good lawmaking could coexist.
- B
Defining successful legislatures doesn't fill the gap. The conclusion concerns whether laws benefit constituents, regardless of what label we give the legislatures that enact them. We need a connection between the legislators' emotional reactions and their consideration of consequences.
- C
Whether constituents follow the laws is a different possible requirement for benefits. The evidence here concerns how legislators react to proposed laws. C doesn't explain why those reactions prevent the consideration that the argument requires.
- DCorrect
This supplies the missing connection: repugnance or enthusiasm goes along with not considering the law's actual consequences. The final sentence tells us that those reactions are aroused. D therefore makes that evidence a basis for saying the legislators fail to meet the requirement for beneficial lawmaking. If legislators could have those reactions and still consider consequences, the stated reasoning would lose its link.
- E
This looks close because it connects strong feelings with an inability to consider consequences. But it explains an inability by pointing to strong feelings; it doesn't say that having the feelings described in the passage means a legislator fails to consider consequences. Some people could have strong feelings and still think carefully. Also, the argument needs a failure to consider, not proof that the legislators are incapable of doing so. D gives the link from the stated reactions to the missing consideration directly.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.