PrepTest 132, Section 4, Question 12
Political scientist: It is not uncommon for a(56 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(11 more words not shown)
- APeople who promote(11 more words not shown)
- BSincere critics of(20 more words not shown)
- CThe ineffectiveness of(22 more words not shown)
- DA politician criticizing(17 more words not shown)
- ETo mobilize large(24 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Never sincere? How could we know that every politician making this criticism is saying something they don't believe?
A politician might honestly think an opponent explains ideas badly. Maybe the critic has higher standards for clarity than the audience does. Other people could understand the opponent well enough while the critic still sincerely finds the presentation muddled. Evidence about what wins public support doesn't establish what that critic believes.
The political scientist's reasoning is that people need a shared purpose to mobilize, so an agenda that large numbers of people cannot understand won't succeed. That is supposed to explain why a politician's complaint about an opponent's unclear presentation is insincere. I'm not convinced by the connection, but I can see the claim the author is trying to establish.
What we’re looking for
And that's all the main-conclusion question asks us to identify. The conclusion is the claim we challenged at the start: these criticisms are never sincere. The points about understanding and political mobilization are offered as support for it.
Working the answers
- A
This accuses the wrong person. The political scientist calls the politician making the criticism insincere, not the person whose agenda is being criticized. A also gives advice about how someone should be regarded instead of directly stating the author's judgment about the criticism.
- B
This tells sincere critics what they should focus on. The author doesn't recommend a better subject for criticism. The claim is that a particular kind of criticism—calling an opponent's presentation incomprehensible—is insincere.
- C
A reason to refrain from criticizing someone isn't the same as evidence that criticism is insincere. Someone could make a pointless criticism and still believe it. C changes the argument's conclusion into a reason not to engage in criticism.
- DCorrect
This identifies both the critic and the criticism accurately: a politician who attacks an opponent for presenting an agenda incomprehensibly is being insincere. That's the judgment the rest of the argument tries to support, regardless of whether the support convinces us.
- E
This resembles the supporting idea about understanding an agenda well enough to mobilize, rather than the conclusion about sincerity. It also goes further: being understood by large numbers of people doesn't require a presentation that cannot be misunderstood at all. Either way, it leaves out the author's main judgment.
More Role/Main Point questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Role/Main Point questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.