PrepTest 155, Section 2, Question 21
Professor: It has been argued that all judges(68 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(11 more words not shown)
- AIf politicians should(13 more words not shown)
- BSpecial interests should(12 more words not shown)
- CJudges should be(20 more words not shown)
- DIf judges should(21 more words not shown)
- ENo public office(22 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
I want judges focused on making good decisions. Would campaigning and fundraising get in the way?
That's an understandable concern about the proposed change. Elected judges would need campaign money, and the professor expects them to accept contributions from special interests. Those contributions create conflicts for politicians, so the professor expects similar conflicts for judges.
We could question that comparison. Perhaps judges operate under different ethical restrictions or different reelection rules.
For example, if a judge never needed to win another election, the judge might ignore donors after taking office rather than keep pleasing them to fund a future campaign. That could make the comparison with a politician facing reelection less straightforward. We aren't told that such protections exist or solve the problem; they're possibilities to consider before treating judges and politicians as interchangeable.
What we’re looking for
The question asks us to support the professor, though. I'd like something making the case that elections would be bad for judges—perhaps stronger grounds for the conflict concern, or a rule connecting that concern to rejecting elections. The ultimate claim isn't merely that conflicts may arise. It's that changing judges from appointed to elected positions is a bad idea.
Working the answers
- A
This says that if politicians should avoid conflicts, judges should too. It doesn't establish the starting condition, and it doesn't tell us what to do about selecting judges. We need a connection from likely campaign conflicts to rejecting the proposed change, not just a conditional comparison of duties.
- B
This tells special interests what they should refrain from doing. It doesn't tell us that they will refrain, or that an office likely to receive their contributions should remain appointed. The professor's conclusion concerns how to select judges, not a rule governing donors' conduct.
- C
This adds a requirement for appointing judges: appointment must usually let them avoid conflicts. But we haven't been told that appointment meets that test. Adding a hurdle doesn't establish that appointment is justified or that elections should be rejected. C doesn't supply the rule the professor needs.
- D
This starts by assuming that judges should be appointed, then draws a conclusion about other offices. But whether judges should be elected instead is exactly what we're trying to evaluate. A rule about what would follow from favoring appointment doesn't give us a reason to favor appointment in the first place.
- ECorrect
This supplies the missing policy rule. If campaigning for an office would likely create conflicts of interest, don't change that office from appointed to elected. The professor's evidence is meant to put judges in that category. With E, the predicted conflicts give a reason to reject the proposed change. We don't have to establish that appointment eliminates every conflict to justify keeping this particular election risk out of the process.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.