PrepTest 138, Section 3, Question 16
Political scientist: People become unenthusiastic about voting if(50 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the political(13 more words not shown)
- Apresumes, without providing(24 more words not shown)
- Bpresumes, without providing(12 more words not shown)
- Cinfers that important(25 more words not shown)
- Dundermines its claim(20 more words not shown)
- Epresumes, without providing(16 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
That could be a reason people don't vote. Why is it the whole explanation?
Suppose someone believes a major problem requires a change in society's attitudes, and government can't bring about that change. I can understand why that person might lose enthusiasm for electing different politicians. The political scientist has supplied a plausible route to discouragement.
But the conclusion says decreasing turnout is entirely due to that belief. What about people who find voting inconvenient? Getting to a polling place might cost time or money they can't spare. Those possibilities can coexist with the explanation the author gives.
What we’re looking for
The flaw is turning one cause into the only cause. We don't have to deny that distrust in government's ability matters. We need to ask what rules out other contributors to the decline.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
The author assumes away every other cause of decreasing turnout. The premise explains why a certain belief would discourage people from voting, but it doesn't establish that this belief accounts for the entire decline. Practical difficulties or other sources of discouragement could contribute too.
- B
The argument concerns what people believe about political solutions and how that belief affects voting. It doesn't have to assume their belief is true. People might mistakenly think politicians cannot solve important problems and become discouraged all the same.
- C
This describes a jump from 'attitudes must change for problems to be addressed' to 'changing attitudes will be enough to address them.' The author doesn't draw that conclusion. The conclusion explains declining voter turnout, rather than claiming that changed attitudes guarantee solutions.
- D
Dissatisfaction with politicians doesn't contradict a belief that politicians cannot solve important problems. Those views could fit together quite comfortably. D invents a conflict within the explanation instead of identifying the unjustified claim that the explanation is complete.
- E
This would run from voter apathy to a failure to change attitudes. The argument runs the other way: beliefs about the need for attitude changes help explain apathy toward voting. We aren't told that uninterested voters prevent those changes, and the conclusion doesn't require that claim.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.