PrepTest 135, Section 1, Question 16
Activist: Any member of the city council ought(38 more words not shown)
The conclusion of the activist's(11 more words not shown)
- AIf all the(23 more words not shown)
- BThe proposal should(7 more words not shown)
- CNo members of(10 more words not shown)
- DIf not every(22 more words not shown)
- EIf one member(21 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What's wrong with letting the city's voters decide?
The activist tells council members to choose between voting against the proposal and abstaining. If everyone abstains, the decision goes to the voters. So far, that describes an available outcome. We haven't been given a reason to avoid it.
The conclusion insists that at least one council member should vote against the proposal. That makes sense if the activist wants to prevent the all-abstain outcome: someone needs to do the other thing the activist permits. But we still need the missing judgment that a decision by the voters should not happen.
What we’re looking for
That's the sufficient assumption I'd look for. We don't have to insult the voters or explain why they shouldn't decide. Simply establish that this proposal should not be left to them, and the recommendation follows from the two options council members ought to choose between.
Working the answers
- A
This predicts which way the voters would decide. It doesn't establish that the voters shouldn't decide, or that their approving the proposal must be prevented. The activist's stated restriction concerns how council members ought to vote; it doesn't by itself tell us what outcome the city's voters ought to reach.
- BCorrect
If the proposal shouldn't be decided by the voters, council members shouldn't all abstain, because that would hand the decision to the voters. At least one member therefore needs to do something other than abstain. The only other action the activist says a member ought to take is voting against the proposal. That completes the reasoning.
- C
Nobody voting in favor still leaves the possibility that everyone abstains. In that situation, the decision goes to the voters and no council member votes against it. C therefore doesn't establish that someone should vote against the proposal.
- D
This tells us what happens if not everyone abstains: the voters won't decide. It still doesn't explain why that is the outcome we should seek. A procedural fact about who decides cannot, by itself, supply the missing judgment that the decision ought to stay away from the voters.
- E
This starts by supposing that one member ought to vote against the proposal and tells the other members what to do in that situation. But whether anyone ought to vote against it is exactly what we're trying to establish. A rule about what follows if that is so doesn't establish that it is so.
More Sufficient Assumption questions
- PrepTest 135, Section 2, Question 15Sufficient Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 10, Question 1Sufficient Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 12, Question 4Sufficient Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 13, Question 1Sufficient Assumption
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 3, Question 7Sufficient Assumption
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Sufficient Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.