PrepTest 151, Section 2, Question 5
Political strategist: Clearly, attacking an opposing candidate on(41 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(9 more words not shown)
- AThe stories that(12 more words not shown)
- BPolitical attacks that(12 more words not shown)
- CPolitical attacks that(14 more words not shown)
- DVoters are typically(8 more words not shown)
- EMost candidates’ policy(8 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Emotionally compelling doesn't automatically mean more effective.
I can see why a story about an opponent's broader philosophy might grab people more than a dispute over policy details. But imagine voters who care closely about how a proposal would work. A dramatic ideological attack might stir their feelings without persuading them that the opponent's policy is bad. The strategist needs a connection between getting that emotional response and getting a more effective attack.
What we’re looking for
The passage gives us the steps leading to emotion: connect the policies to an ideology, tell a story, provide context. Then it uses that emotional appeal to support the broader claim about effectiveness. For the required assumption, I'd look for the missing link between those last two ideas. We don't need to decide whether we personally find that kind of attack persuasive.
Working the answers
- A
Being remembered isn't the same as being effective. A memorable attack might persuade voters, or it might stick in their minds for an unhelpful reason. The strategist's reasoning doesn't use memory as its link. A could describe stories accurately without establishing what emotional appeal contributes to political effectiveness.
- BCorrect
This supplies the link the argument uses: emotionally compelling attacks are generally more effective than attacks without that quality. The strategist offers emotional appeal as the reason philosophical attacks work better. Without a connection from that appeal to effectiveness, the supporting explanation stops short of the conclusion.
- C
More context would extend the explanation of how storytelling works, but it still wouldn't connect emotional appeal with effectiveness. The passage already says the philosophical attack provides context. We need the missing step after that account, not an additional comparison about context itself.
- D
Voters could be interested in policy details while still responding more effectively to an emotionally compelling attack. The argument doesn't require them to be uninterested. Their lack of interest might provide a separate reason to doubt attacks focused on details, but it isn't the assumption needed to turn the strategist's stated emotional appeal into effectiveness.
- E
An attacker could portray a proposal as part of an ideology even if the proposal didn't actually originate in that ideology. The framing might be misleading and still tell an emotionally compelling story. The strategist's explanation of an attack's effectiveness doesn't require most candidates' policies to have the ideological origins that the attack attributes to them.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.