PrepTest 153, Section 2, Question 24
Editorialist: Landis, one of this city's top elected(56 more words not shown)
The editorialist's conclusion follows logically(8 more words not shown)
- AThe money Landis(6 more words not shown)
- BIt is immoral(14 more words not shown)
- CLandis knew about(9 more words not shown)
- DEvery public official(9 more words not shown)
- EHad Landis not(18 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Whose money was it? That is my first question about Landis spending $10,000 on his office. Using public money and spending his own money could raise different concerns.
The editorialist says it doesn't matter. Landis violated his official duties either way because spending so much on decorating is immoral while people in the city live in poverty.
I'm not immediately convinced by that moral judgment. If spending optional money on myself is wrong whenever someone else needs it, what about buying lunch instead of eating cheaply at home and donating the difference? What about buying a soda I don't need? The amounts are smaller, but the same objection could reach those choices too. Perhaps someone would defend that demanding rule. The editorialist hasn't explained where to draw the line.
But now we're asked to make this argument's conclusion follow. That changes where we need to focus. Accept the stated premise that this spending is immoral. What is the conclusion? Not merely that Landis acted immorally, but that he violated his official duties.
What we’re looking for
Are public officials officially required to avoid every immoral action? That's the connection we need. An argument about how bad the purchase was could leave that question unanswered. A rule tying immoral conduct to violation of official duty would complete the reasoning.
Working the answers
- A
The editorialist says Landis violated his duties regardless of the source. Identifying money that wasn't his own doesn't establish that broader claim. It doesn't even specify that the money was the city's. Most importantly, it doesn't connect the accepted moral judgment with his official obligations.
- B
This supports the claim that the spending was immoral. But that is already the reason the editorialist gives, not the conclusion we need to establish. Even if we accept the strict rule against luxuries, we still need to know why breaking that moral rule violates an official duty. B gets us to the wrong stopping point.
- C
Knowing about or participating in the purchase doesn't tell us which official duty it violates. We could establish that Landis knowingly approved the decorating and still lack the rule connecting immoral spending with his duties.
- DCorrect
Every public official has an official duty to avoid immoral actions. Landis is a public official, and the passage tells us this expenditure was immoral. Under D's rule, performing that action violates an official duty. The source of the money no longer matters to this argument.
We don't have to agree that every immoral act should be an official violation. The question asks what would make the conclusion follow if assumed, and this rule supplies the needed link.
- E
This gives the money an alternative use: helping people in poverty. That could make the spending look harder to defend morally. It still doesn't establish that choosing the office over that alternative violated an official obligation. Like B, it leaves the final step from morality to duty unfilled.
More Sufficient Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Sufficient Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.