PrepTest 148, Section 3, Question 10
Council chair: The traditional code of parliamentary procedure(67 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(8 more words not shown)
- AThe council's use(10 more words not shown)
- BThose who have(16 more words not shown)
- CRevision of the(10 more words not shown)
- DIt is not(14 more words not shown)
- EThe alternate code(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Will the replacement actually restore public confidence?
The chair gives us a reason to dislike the current rules: they lead to endless arguments over procedure and make the council look ineffective. 'Quibble' means argue over small details. If success depends on public confidence, that is a problem worth addressing.
What we’re looking for
But a code that has worked elsewhere might not solve that problem here. What if the council switches and the public still doesn't trust it? The recommendation needs to help with the loss of confidence, not merely replace one rulebook with another. For a weakener, my first thought is something showing that the alternate code won't deliver that improvement.
Working the answers
- A
Using the troublesome rules intermittently doesn't establish that their effects are minor. An occasional procedural fight could still damage public confidence. A limits how often the rules are used, but it doesn't remove the stated problem or show that the proposed response is unnecessary.
- B
This is closer to my concern about the replacement, but attempting to confuse an opponent doesn't establish success. And even successful confusion wouldn't by itself show a loss of public confidence. We also don't know how common these attempts are. B raises a concern without showing that the alternate code would fail to address the chair's problem.
- CCorrect
There is another way to fix the problem: repair the current code. The revision will eliminate the troublesome rules, so adopting an entirely different code no longer looks imperative. This doesn't show that the alternate code is bad. It challenges the need to switch by providing a remedy within the existing system—a different route from my initial prediction about the replacement failing.
- D
'Not always' leaves open whether this particular change is reasonable. If I say I want pizza tonight, answering that I shouldn't eat pizza every night doesn't address my proposal. Likewise, the chair recommends this switch in these circumstances, not a rule requiring a new code every time public confidence is at issue.
- E
Few provisions of the alternate code have been criticized as obscure or unnecessary. That fits the idea that switching might avoid the stated defects in the old code, rather than undermining it. Lack of criticism isn't proof that the replacement is flawless, but it supplies no reason to reject the chair's recommendation.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.