LSAT 151 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q5

LR Question 5 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Political strategist: Clearly, attacking an opposing candidate …

QUESTION TYPE: Necessary Assumption

CONCLUSION: Attacking opponents on philosophical grounds is more effective than attacking the details of their policies.

REASONING: It tells a story and provides context, so it’s emotionally compelling.

ANALYSIS: We have two options here. You can attack an opponent on philosophical grounds (PG) or attack the details of their policies (D).

The reasoning tells us that PG is emotionally compelling.

But then the conclusion makes a comparative claim. It tells us that PG is more effective than D.

Why? We have nothing to tell us why being emotionally compelling makes something more effective.

What if appealing to emotions makes people think you’re a crybaby and then it’s not really that effective? Then the conclusion wouldn’t work.

So we need a link between emotionally compelling and effective.

___________

1. There’s no appeal to memory in the argument, so this adds a condition that we don’t need.
   Negation: People are not most likely to remember emotionally compelling stories.
2. CORRECT. This connects emotionally compelling to effectiveness. If this weren’t true, we’d have no basis to conclude that PG is more effective than D.
   Negation: Political attacks that are emotionally compelling are not more effective than those that are not.
3. We already know philosophical attacks provide context – the argument says that. This doesn’t help connect to effectiveness.
   Negation: Political attacks that tell a story don’t provide more context than those that do not.
4. If anything, this might weaken the argument. If voters don’t care about details, maybe that’s why philosophical attacks are more effective – not because they’re emotionally compelling. Either way, this isn’t necessary.
   Negation: Voters are typically interested in the details of policies.
5. Doesn’t matter whether policies are actually ideological. The argument just says philosophical attacks frame them that way.
   Negation: Most policy proposals are not grounded in an overarching ideological scheme.